The Co-production of Public Services: Management and Evaluation [1st ed.] 9783030607098, 9783030607104

Table of contents :
Front Matter ....Pages i-xiii
Introduction (Denita Cepiku, Marta Marsilio, Mariafrancesca Sicilia, Milena Vainieri)....Pages 1-10
Research Aim and Methods (Denita Cepiku, Marta Marsilio, Mariafrancesca Sicilia, Milena Vainieri)....Pages 11-19
Activation of Co-Production: General Context and Antecedents (Denita Cepiku, Marta Marsilio, Mariafrancesca Sicilia, Milena Vainieri)....Pages 21-50
Implementing and Managing Co-Production (Denita Cepiku, Marta Marsilio, Mariafrancesca Sicilia, Milena Vainieri)....Pages 51-79
Co-production Evaluation (Denita Cepiku, Marta Marsilio, Mariafrancesca Sicilia, Milena Vainieri)....Pages 81-112
Conclusions (Denita Cepiku, Marta Marsilio, Mariafrancesca Sicilia, Milena Vainieri)....Pages 113-119
Back Matter ....Pages 121-147

Citation preview

The Co-production of Public Services Management and Evaluation Denita Cepiku Marta Marsilio Mariafrancesca Sicilia Milena Vainieri

The Co-production of Public Services

Denita Cepiku • Marta Marsilio Mariafrancesca Sicilia •  Milena Vainieri

The Co-production of Public Services Management and Evaluation

Denita Cepiku Department of Management and Law University of Rome Tor Vergata Rome, Italy Mariafrancesca Sicilia Department of Management University of Bergamo Bergamo, Italy

Marta Marsilio Department of Economics, Management and Quantitative Methods University of Milano Milan, Italy Milena Vainieri Management and Health Laboratory Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna Pisa, Italy

ISBN 978-3-030-60709-8    ISBN 978-3-030-60710-4 (eBook) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60710-4 © The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020 This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed. The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature Switzerland AG. The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland

Contents

1 Introduction  1 1.1 Co-Production Definitions  1 1.2 The Resurgence of Co-Production in Public Services  4 1.3 Book Aims and Outline  5 References  6 2 Research Aim and Methods 11 2.1 Research Aim 11 2.2 Research Methods 13 2.3 Enhancing the Understanding of Co-production: A Comprehensive Framework 15 References 17 3 Activation of Co-Production: General Context and Antecedents 21 3.1 Introduction 21 3.2 General Context 22 3.3 Antecedents of Co-Production 24 3.3.1 Antecedents Related to Lay Actors 24 3.3.2 Antecedents Related to the Regular Service Provider  34 3.3.3 Antecedents Related to the Co-Produced Service 36 3.4 Concluding Remarks 37 References 43

v

vi 

CONTENTS

4 Implementing and Managing Co-Production 51 4.1 Introduction 52 4.2 Co-Production Management Levers 53 4.2.1 Institutional Arrangements 55 4.2.2 Planning 59 4.2.3 Communication Strategies 59 4.2.4 Management of Lay Actors 61 4.2.5 Management of Professionals 64 4.2.6 Leadership 66 4.2.7 Accountability and Performance Management 67 4.3 Concluding Remarks 69 References 73 5 Co-production Evaluation 81 5.1 Introduction 81 5.2 Lay Actor Co-production Outcomes 82 5.2.1 Satisfaction 83 5.2.2 Empowerment 87 5.2.3 Awareness 87 5.2.4 Learning 88 5.2.5 Lay Actor Costs 88 5.2.6 Externalities 89 5.3 Regular Service Provider Co-production Outcomes 89 5.3.1 Cost Efficiency 90 5.3.2 Effectiveness 92 5.3.3 Impact on Workforce 93 5.3.4 Uncertainty 93 5.3.5 Trust 94 5.4 Co-production Outcomes for the Community 94 5.4.1 Value to Community 95 5.4.2 Value to Society 96 5.4.3 Social Economic Impact 97 5.5 Co-production Impact on Public Value 97 5.6 Concluding Remarks 99 References104

 CONTENTS 

vii

6 Conclusions113 6.1 A Comprehensive Framework on Co-production114 6.2 Future Research Agenda117 6.3 Implications for Policy and Practice119 Appendices121 Index145

List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Fig. 2.2 Fig. A.1

PRISMA flow chart The comprehensive framework of co-production activation, management and evaluation The timeline overview of the papers dealing with coproduction

14 16 121

ix

List of Tables

Table 3.1 Table 3.2 Table 4.1 Table 5.1 Table A.1 Table A.2

Overview and summary conceptualisation of motivational factors for co-production Synthesis of the antecedents of co-production Synthesis of managerial levers of co-production Synthesis of the outcome of co-production The distribution of papers in terms of methodology applied and sector The journals that hosted co-production articles

28 40 70 100 122 123

xi

List of Boxes

Box 3.1 Parents’ Co-Production on the Education of Their Children During COVID-19 Box 3.2 Co-Production in the Municipality of Rimini (Italy): The Ci.Vi. Vo. Project Box 4.1  Lay Actor Selection: The Capacity-Representativeness Trade-Off Box 4.2  Management of Lay Actors: An Example in Healthcare Box 4.3 Co-Production in Australian Museums and the Influence of Professional Bodies Box 4.4 Performance Evaluation in a Pilot Neighbourhood Co-Production Project in the City of Tampere, Finland

33 38 56 63 65 67

xiii

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Abstract  This chapter presents the concept of co-production and the main classifications developed in the literature. It discusses the reasons for the resurgence of interest in co-production among scholars and practitioners. Finally, the main aims of the book and its contents are outlined. Keywords  Co-production definitions • Co-production research gaps • Co-production framework

1.1   Co-Production Definitions Co-production has received attention from both academics and practitioners working in the public sector since the 1970s. The concept of co-­ production was originally developed in a workshop on ‘Political Theory and Policy Analysis’ at Indiana University in 1973. Co-production drew great interest among public administration scholars in the US in the 1970s and 1980s (Parks et al. 1981). It was also studied in the context of industrial and service markets and, in the 1990s, in consumer markets, where the emergence of the ‘customising consumer’ who takes an active role in the production process was witnessed (Abeysekera et  al. 2015). More recently, the work of Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000, 2002, 2004a, b) and Vargo and Lusch (2004, 2006) on value co-creation and the service dominant logic of marketing has driven the idea of co-production.

© The Author(s) 2020 D. Cepiku et al., The Co-production of Public Services, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60710-4_1

1

2 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

According to Ostrom (1996), co-production is the process through which input—used to provide a good or a service—is contributed by individuals who are not in the same organisation. It has been used with a large variety of meanings and is considered a relatively heterogeneous concept (Verschuere et al. 2012). With respect to the ‘co-’ side of co-production, Nabatchi et al. (2017) identified state actors (i.e., government agents serving in a professional capacity) and lay actors (i.e., members of the public, serving voluntarily as citizens or users) as working together in any phase of the public service cycle (i.e., commissioning, design, delivery, and assessment). In particular, they distinguish three levels of co-production: individual, group and collective. The main differences between these three levels of co-production are related to the role played by lay actors and the type of benefits they generate and receive through co-production (Nabatchi et al. 2017). Individual co-production implies that a state actor and a lay actor (a client or a customer) work directly with each other. The benefits of the co-production activity tend to be personal for the lay actor (see also Brudney and England 1983) but there may also be social benefits for the wider community. Group co-production is characterised by the presence of one or more state actors working directly and simultaneously with a specific cluster or category of lay actors who share common interests. Collective co-production is defined as one or more state actors (within a single organisation or across multiple organisations) working directly and simultaneously with several lay actors to address one or more related issues. Differently from group co-production, where lay actors are defined as a specific segment of the population, which leads to personal benefits for the group members, collective co-production involves diverse members of the community such as citizens, volunteers, and non-governmental entities (see also Alford 2014; Bovaird 2007) and benefits are shared by the entire community (see also Brudney and England 1983). Another classification based on the ‘co-actors’ side was proposed by Alford (2014). He distinguishes three kinds of co-producers: consumers, suppliers, and partners. Consumers stand at the end of the service delivery process and act as co-producers in their secondary role, whereas suppliers and partners do so as part of their primary role. With respect to the ‘production’ side of co-production, it is possible to distinguish four types of co-production according to the specific phase of the service cycle in which state actors and lay actors work together.

1 INTRODUCTION 

3

Co-commissioning is defined as the identification and prioritisation of the necessary public services, outcomes, and users. It is thus prospective, such as in the identification of budget priorities in order to allocate specific amounts of resources in participatory budgeting experiences (Barbera et al. 2016; Bovaird 2007). Co-design involves users and communities participating in the creation, planning or arrangement of public services (Bovaird and Loeffler 2012), similarly to an approach based on direct citizen participation (Nabatchi and Amsler 2014; Nabatchi and Leighninger 2015). It can be prospective or concurrent, such as in the case of a professional social services unit working with elderly people to create opportunities for “interdependent” living (Bovaird and Loeffler 2012; Willis and Bovaird 2012). It includes user innovation (Bonomi Savignon and Cepiku 2018; De Rosis et al. 2020). Co-delivery is related more to the traditional view of co-production and consists of joint activities between the government and lay actors, aimed at providing or improving public services (Alford and O’Flynn 2012; Thomas 2013), it is thus concurrent in nature. Examples include students helping to organise university welcome days (e.g., Brandsen and Honingh 2016), young people working as peer educators in schools (e.g., Bovaird and Loeffler 2012), and the involvement of patients in healthcare services (Guglielmetti et al. 2016; Sorrentino et al. 2017). Co-assessment involves the government and lay actors working together to monitor and evaluate public services, and assess service quality, problems and/or areas for improvement (Bovaird and Loeffler 2012). It is thus retrospective in nature. At the practical level it involves, for example, with parents working with special education auditors to assess services for their children (Sicilia et al. 2016), or with residents of social housing complexes as “tenant inspection advisors” for the government (Bovaird and Loeffler 2012). Other definitions considered the resources brought by professionals and users/communities, or at the type of interaction. In the former, co-­ production may be seen as substitutive (replacing local government input with input from users/communities) or additive (adding more user/community input to professional input or introducing professional support to previous individual self-help or community self-organising) while the type of co-production interaction is described as either relational or transactional (Loeffler 2009). Among the various definitions, Brandsen and Honing (2018) identified three common features, that (a) they constitute a part of the process of

4 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

producing services, (b) they refer to collaboration between professional service providers and citizens/users, and that (c) active input by citizens is needed to shape the service (Brandsen and Honingh 2018). All co-production definitions thus emphasise that citizens are not merely the recipients of services, but can act as co-producers at different stages of the production process for public services. This is quite an important feature in order to understand how to set up a co-production arrangement and how to control it.

1.2   The Resurgence of Co-Production in Public Services Since the first definition by Elinor Ostrom in the 1970s, co-production has developed through different waves (the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s) and several disciplinary streams of research (public administration and contemporary public management; sociology; welfare economics and public choice; urban studies; consumer psychology, marketing and services management, and the third sector). The interest of public management scholars in the co-production of public services has waxed and waned (Fugini et al. 2016); recently, this concept has attracted renewed attention from both scholars and practitioners, generating a vibrant field of study and practice with several ad-hoc study groups, think tanks, and EU funded projects, conferences and publications investigating co-production in several public services (OECD 2011, 2018). The interest in co-production was due to various reasons that were synthesised by Bovaird and Loeffler (2017) into five issues. The first is public scepticism and concern, as well as increased dissatisfaction or frustration on the part of some citizens, about the legitimacy of public decisions and a low level of citizen trust of in government, which led governments themselves to involve citizens in public decision-making. Secondly, there is a belief that an increase in the knowledge and expertise of citizens (learning) will improve the quality of public decisions and public services. Thirdly, there is awareness that some important and sometimes hard decisions can be taken more effectively, and also be perceived as more legitimate, if the point of view of citizens is considered in advance, and at an early stage of the decision-making process. Forth, some groups of citizens, especially those with specific interests (i.e., those hit by specific diseases), have asked to participate in decisions affecting them and their

1 INTRODUCTION 

5

wellbeing. Fifth, there is increasing government awareness that the involvement of service users can contribute to improving public services. For some scholars, the co-production of public goods and services is also linked to the austerity policies that OECD countries have been experiencing (Grimshaw 2013; Bracci et  al. 2015; Nabatchi et  al. 2017), as well as the increase in demand for complex services in response to wicked problems (Head and Alford 2015). According to other scholars, co-­ production can help to provide public services that are better targeted and more responsive towards users (Duffy 2007), and it can increase the efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery, as well as spurring public sector innovation (Nabatchi et  al. 2016; Osborne et  al. 2013; Cepiku and Giordano 2014). Others see co-production as a way to respond to democratic and citizenship deficiencies (Pestoff 2009). From this perspective, co-production may offer a way to reallocate roles and responsibilities across government, civil society, and individuals (Nabatchi et al. 2016); it can provide instrumental value for citizens in terms of satisfaction, need fulfilment, and empowerment (Levine and Fisher 1984; Needham 2008; Cepiku and Giordano 2014; Sancino 2016); and it can enhance services and allow for greater sustainability (Boyle and Harris 2009; Dunston et al. 2009). It can also provide normative values for society with reference to its relevance to promoting higher citizenship and democratic governance (Dunston et  al. 2009), greater empowerment and participation (Boyle and Harris 2009; Brudney and England 1983; Dunston et  al. 2009; Needham 2008; Ostrom 1996), improved social capital (Jakobsen 2013; Marschall 2004; Meijer 2011; Schneider et al. 1997), and greater accountability (Ostrom 1996).

1.3   Book Aims and Outline This book aims to provide scholars and practitioners with a comprehensive framework that can help to strengthen the understanding and analysis of co-production and its outcomes. The proposed framework includes four macro pillars commonly identified in the wider collaborative governance literature: (i) general context, (ii) antecedents, (iii) collaboration management, and (iv) outcomes. These macro pillars are discussed in order to consider the distinctiveness of co-production. In particular, the fact that co-production involves the relationship between lay actors and state actors affects the characteristics of each these elements. Existing literature on co-­ production in both the public and private sector has therefore been

6 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

reviewed and analysed. Research focusing on the private sector was particularly included, as co-production has been extensively researched in the business sector. Taking into due account context specificities, this volume provides valuable insights into developing a comprehensive framework and in identifying areas in need of further research in the public sector field. The book is of interest for both students interested in better understanding the dynamics of co-production, and for practitioners engaged in improving public service delivery through citizens and community collaboration. The book is structured as follows: Chap. 2 illustrates the research aims and the method deployed to design the comprehensive theoretical framework in more detail. It also illustrates the overall framework. The following three Chapters (3, 4 and 5) focus on the macro pillars of the framework and the related components. In particular, Chap. 3 illustrates and discusses the general context and the antecedents of co-production, Chap. 4 presents the levers of collaboration management, and Chap. 5 classifies the findings related to the outcomes of co-production. Chapter 6 concludes the book by suggesting implications for both scholars and practitioners.

References Abeysekera, R., D. Patton, and A. Mullineux. 2015. Co-Production in Business Counselling in Microfinance Setting: A Conceptual Approach. Journal of Enterprising Culture 23 (03): 299–319. https://doi.org/10.1142/ S0218495815500107. Alford, J. 2014. The Multiple Facets of Co-Production: Building on the Work of Elinor Ostrom. Public Management Review 16 (3): 299–316. https://doi. org/10.1080/14719037.2013.806578. Alford, John, and Janine O’Flynn. 2012. Rethinking Public Service Delivery: Managing with External Providers. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Barbera, C., M.  Sicilia, and I.  Steccolini. 2016. What Mr. Rossi Wants in Participatory Budgeting: Two Rs (Responsiveness and Representation) and Two Is (Iteration and Inclusiveness). International Journal of Public Administration 39 (13): 1088–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/0190069 2.2016.1177839. Bonomi Savignon, A., and D.  Cepiku. 2018. Utenti che innovano: un’analisi empirica nella tutela della salute. Azienda Pubblica. ISSN: 1127–5812. Bovaird, T. 2007. Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Co-Production of Public Services. Public Administration Review 67 (5): 846–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.

1 INTRODUCTION 

7

Bovaird, T., and E.  Loeffler. 2012. From Engagement to Co-Production: The Contribution of Users and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23 (4): 1119–1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6. Bovaird, Tony, and Elke Loeffler. 2017. From Participation to Co-Production. In The Palgrave Handbook of Public Administration and Management in Europe, ed. Edoardo Ongaro and Sandra van Thiel, 403–423. London: Palgrave Macmillan. Boyle, David, and Michael Harris. 2009. The Challenge of Co-Production: How Equal Partnerships Between Professionals and the Public Are Crucial to Improving Public Services. London: Nesta. Bracci, E., C.  Humphrey, J.  Moll, and I.  Steccolini. 2015. Public Sector Accounting, Accountability and Austerity: More Than Balancing the Books? Accounting, Auditing and Accountability Journal 28 (6): 878–908. https:// doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-06-2015-2090. Brandsen, T., and M.  Honingh. 2016. Distinguishing Different Types of Co-Production: A Conceptual Analysis Based on the Classical Definitions. Public Administration Review 76 (3): 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/ puar.12465. Brandsen and Honing. 2018. Definitions of co-production and co-creation. In Co-Production and Co-Creation, eds. T. Brandsen, T. Steen, and B. Verschuere. New York and London: Routledege Taylor & Francis Group. Brudney, J.L., and R.E. England. 1983. Toward a Definition of the Co-Production Concept. Public Administration Review 43 (1): 59–65. https://doi. org/10.2307/975300. Cepiku, D., and F.  Giordano. 2014. Co-Production in Developing Countries: Insights from the Community Health Workers Experience. Public Management Review 16 (3): 317–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.822535. De Rosis, S., D. Cerasuolo, and S. Nuti. 2020. Using Patient-Reported Measures to Drive Change in Healthcare: The Experience of the Digital, Continuous and Systematic PREMs Observatory in Italy. BMC Health Services Research 20 (315). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-020-05099-4. Duffy, S. (2007). The Economics of Self-Directed Support. Journal of Integrated Care 15 (2): 26–37. Dunston, R., A. Lee, D. Boud, P. Brodie, and M. Chiarella. 2009. Co-Production and Health System Reform—From Re-Imagining to Re-Making. Australian Journal of Public Administration 68 (1): 39–52. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2008.00608.x. Fugini, Mariagrazia, Enrico Bracci, and Mariafrancesca Sicilia. 2016. Co-Production in the Public Sector. Experiences and Challenges, PoliMI SpringerBriefs. Cham: Springer International Publishing.

8 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Grimshaw, Damian. 2013. Austerity, Privatization and Levelling Down: Public Sector Reforms in the United Kingdom. In Public Sector Shock: The Impact of Policy Retrenchment in Europe, ed. Daniel Vaughan-Whitehead, 576–626. Cheltenham/Geneva: Edward Elgar/ILO. Guglielmetti, Chiara, Silvia Gilardi, Marta Marsilio, and Maddalena Sorrentino. 2016. Managing the Co-Production Puzzle in Healthcare Sector: Filling the Blanks. In Co-Production in the Public Sector. Experiences and Challenges, ed. M. Fugini, E. Bracci, and M. Sicilia, 77–95. Cham: Springer. Head, B.W., and J. Alford. 2015. Wicked Problems: Implications for Public Policy and Management. Administration and Society 47 (6): 711–739. https://doi. org/10.1177/0095399713481601. Jakobsen, M. 2013. Can Government Initiatives Increase Citizen Co-Production? Results of a Randomized Field Experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23 (1): 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus036. Levine, C.H., and G. Fisher. 1984. Citizenship and Service Delivery: The Promise of Co-Production. Public Administration Review 44: 178–189. https://doi. org/10.2307/3380451. Loeffler, E. 2009. Why Co-Production Is an Important Topic for Local Government. Local Authority Research Councils Initiative. Marschall, M.J. 2004. Citizen Participation and the Neighborhood Context: A New Look at the Co-Production of Local Public Goods. Political Research Quarterly 57 (2): 231–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 106591290405700205. Meijer, A.J. 2011. Networked Co-Production of Public Services in Virtual Communities: From a Government-Centric to a Community Approach to Public Service Support. Public Administration Review 71 (4): 598–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02391.x. Nabatchi, T., and L.B.  Amsler. 2014. Direct Public Engagement in Local Government. American Review of Public Administration 44 (4): 63–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074013519702. Nabatchi, Tina, and Matt Leighninger. 2015. Public Participation for 21st Century Democracy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nabatchi, T., T.  Steen, M.  Sicilia, and D.  Brand. 2016. Understanding the Diversity of Co-Production: Introduction to the IJPA Special Issue. International Journal of Public Administration 39 (13): 1001–1005. https:// doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1177836. Nabatchi, T., A. Sancino, and M. Sicilia. 2017. Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The Who, When, and What of Co-Production. Public Administration Review 77 (5): 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765. Needham, C. 2008. Realising the Potential of Co-Production: Negotiating Improvements in Public Services. Social Policy and Society 7 (2): 221–231. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1474746407004174.

1 INTRODUCTION 

9

OECD. 2011. Together for Better Public Services: Partnering with Citizens and Civil Society. Paris. ———. 2018. Co-Production - Enhancing the Role of Citizens in Governance and Service Delivery. Dossier No. 4, May. Osborne, S.P., Z. Radnor, and G. Nasi. 2013. A New Theory of Public Service Management: Towards a (Public) Service-Dominant Approach. American Review of Public Administration 43 (2): 135–158. https://doi. org/10.1177/0275074012466935. Ostrom, E. 1996. Crossing the Great Divide: Co-Production, Synergy, and Development. World Development 24 (6): 1073–1087. https://doi. org/10.1016/0305-750X(96)00023-X. Parks, R.B., P.C. Baker, L. Kiser, R. Oakerson, E. Ostrom, V. Ostrom, S.L. Percy, M. Vandivort, G.P. Whitaker, and R. Wilson. 1981. Consumers as Co-Producers of Public Services: Some Economic and Institutional Considerations. Policy Studies Journal 9 (7): 1001–1011. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1981.tb01208.x. Pestoff, V. 2009. Towards a Paradigm of Democratic Participation: Citizen Participation and Co-Production of Personal Social Services in Sweden. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 80 (2): 197–224. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8292.2009.00384.x. Prahalad, C.K., and V.  Ramaswamy. 2000. Co-Opting Customer Competence. Harvard Business Review 78: 79–87. ———. 2002. The Co-Creation Connection. Strategy and Business 27: 51–60. ———. 2004a. Co-Creation Experiences: The Next Practice in Value Creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing 18: 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/ dir.20015. Prahalad, Coimbatore Krishnarao, and Venkatram Ramaswamy. 2004b. The Future of Competition: Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers. Boston: Harvard Business School. Sancino, A. 2016. The Meta Co-Production of Community Outcomes: Towards a Citizens’ Capabilities Approach. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 27 (1): 409–424. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11266-015-9596-9. Schneider, M., P.  Teske, M.  Marschall, M.  Mintrom, and C.  Roch. 1997. Institutional Arrangements and the Creation of Social Capital: The Effects of Public School Choice. American Political Science Review 91 (1): 82–93. https://doi.org/10.2307/2952260. Sicilia, M., E.  Guarini, A.  Sancino, M.  Andreani, and R.  Ruffini. 2016. Public Services Management and Co-Production in Multi-Level Governance Settings. International Review of Administrative Sciences 82 (1): 8–27. https://doi. org/10.1177/0020852314566008.

10 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Sorrentino, M., C.  Guglielmetti, S.  Gilardi, and M.  Marsilio. 2017. Healthcare Services and the Co-Production Puzzle: Filling in the Blanks. Administration and Society 49 (10): 1424–1449. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0095399715593317. Thomas, J.C. 2013. Citizen, Customer, Partner: Rethinking the Place of the Public in Public Management. Public Administration Review 73 (6): 786–796. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12109. Vargo, S.L., and R.F.  Lusch. 2004. Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. Journal of Marketing 68 (1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1509/ jmkg.68.1.1.24036. Vargo, Stephen L., and Robert F.  Lusch. 2006. Evolving to a New Dominant Logic for Marketing. In The Service Dominant Logic of Marketing, ed. Stephen L. Vargo and Robert F. Lusch, 3–28. New York: M.E. Sharpe. Verschuere, B., T. Brandsen, and V. Pestoff. 2012. Co-Production: The State of the Art in Research and the Future Agenda. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23: 1083–1101. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8. Willis, M., and T. Bovaird. 2012. Commissioning for quality and outcome. In Glasby J. Commissioning for Health and Well-Being: An Introduction. Bristol: The Policy Press.

CHAPTER 2

Research Aim and Methods

Abstract  This chapter presents the research aim and the methods deployed in collecting evidence and developing the theoretical framework for co-production. The literature on co-production has grown steadily in the past two decades, but in a fragmented way. Academic research has mainly tackled particular aspects of co-production, and focused on specific sectors. It has yet to integrate the many co-production concepts into a distinctive theoretical overarching and comprehensive framework. Drawing on a systematic literature review, the chapter develops a comprehensive framework that includes key four pillars (i) general context, (ii) antecedents of co-production, (iii) management and implementation of co-production, and (iv) outcomes of co-production. Finally, each component is briefly described. Keywords  Co-production framework • Research methods • Systematic literature review • Collaborative governance

2.1   Research Aim Research into co-production has blossomed in recent years, into a vibrant field of study. In response to this increase in interest, scholars have called for a better understanding of this phenomenon, and have explicitly pointed to the need to comprehensively integrate the wide array of concepts and

© The Author(s) 2020 D. Cepiku et al., The Co-production of Public Services, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60710-4_2

11

12 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

dimensions investigated, and their relationships (Brandsen et  al. 2018; Dudau et al. 2019). This lack of systematic knowledge represents a stage of enchantment with the co-paradigm and, at the same time, an impetus for disenchantment (Dudau et al. 2019, 1582). Several works have tried to offer a synthesis of co-production in the public sector in general (Sicilia et  al. 2019; Verschuere et  al. 2012; Voorberg et  al. 2014) and in specific contexts (Honingh et  al. 2018; Palumbo 2016; Loeffler and Bovaird 2020). This book intends to provide scholars and practitioners with a comprehensive framework that can help to strengthen understanding of the functioning and results of co-production. This framework is innovative in several regards. Firstly, the proposed framework provides a novel classification of the different variables affecting the activation of co-production. While academic research has paid a great deal of attention to the most influential factors in activating co-­ production (Voorberg et  al. 2014; Sicilia et  al. 2019), there is still no overall and clear classification of the findings. Sicilia and colleagues (2019) noted that context matters; thus, a clear and separate classification of the exogenous factors and characteristics of the environment in which co-­ production takes place can provide useful hints for both scholars and practitioners about the role played by these factors. Secondly, the framework offers a classification of the different levels and types of outcomes of co-production. So far studies have largely discussed the expected effects of co-production, but they have not been systematised. Reviews have already pointed out the paucity of empirical research aimed at understanding the ultimate effects of co-production, and their empirical evaluation (Sicilia et al. 2019; Verschuere et al. 2012; Voorberg et al. 2014). This may be mainly ascribed to the celebratory nature of co-­ production, and to the normative assumption behind its ‘magic nature’, that the outcomes of (public) services in which users and professionals work together actively ought to be “better services” (Dudau et al. 2019; Voorberg et al. 2014). The classification offered is useful in framing the effects of co-production on different public services and can inform future studies and allow a consistent accumulation of knowledge with respect to co-production evaluation. Thirdly, this framework introduces the concept of co-production management and implementation. Studies do not provide a comprehensive analysis of ways in which co-production is managed. The recent interest in the high complexity and failure rate of co-production, which may lead to

2  RESEARCH AIM AND METHODS 

13

value co-destruction (Järvi et al. 2018; Williams et al. 2016), has paved the way for widespread agreement that the design and implementation of co-production initiatives affect the quality of collaboration and its outcomes (Aschhoff and Vogel 2018; Cepiku 2017; Mustak et  al. 2016). Specifically, this book highlights the main managerial levers of co-­ production investigated in the literature, from both a theoretical and practical perspective. We have embraced contributions coming from the private sector literature, where this is appropriate or suitable, considering context specificities, in order to describe these issues in a distinctive way. Indeed, previous literature reviews have overlooked the valuable insights possible from the extensive research, especially empirical, carried out in the private sector. The framework also relies upon insights from the collaborative governance literature. Despite the differences between collaborative governance literature and co-production, co-production can be seen as a collaborative arrangement (Cepiku 2017). The comprehensive co-production framework has thus been developed by leveraging several frameworks on collaborative governance in general (see the review by Bryson et al. 2015).

2.2   Research Methods A systematic review of the literature was performed to better identify and classify the extensive literature on co-production. This method relies on a replicable, scientific and transparent process for article selection (Tranfield et  al. 2003). A three-step procedure was applied for the identification, selection and review of the extant co-production literature, as reported in Fig. 2.1, illustrating the Prisma flow chart (Moher et al. 2009). The first step was aimed at identifying existing studies on co-­production, conducted in either the public or private sector. Papers relating to the private sector were included, as co-production has been extensively studied in the business sector (Agarwal 2013). Taking context specificities into due account, these papers provided some insights into developing a comprehensive framework and identifying areas in need of further research in the public sector field. An electronic keyword search for titles, abstracts and/or keywords containing the terms ‘co-production’ or ‘co-production’ was conducted in June 2019 across the ISI Web of Knowledge and Scopus. The search was then narrowed to peer-reviewed English-language articles and the subject areas in the social sciences, such as management, business, public

Included

Eligibility

Screening

Identification

14 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Records identified through Scopus database (n =1.449)

Records identified through ISI WoS database (n = 1073)

Records after duplicates were removed (163 duplicates) (n = 2359)

Records screened (n = 2359)

Records excluded after reading abstracts (n =2011)

Full-text articles assessed for eligibility (n = 348)

Full-text articles excluded (n = 82)

Studies included in qualitative synthesis (n = 266)

Fig. 2.1  PRISMA flow chart

administration, economics, and sociology. This step returned 2359 articles, excluding duplicates. The second step was to conduct a qualitative screening of the titles and abstracts to identify those that met the following eligibility criteria: original articles on the co-production of services or products either conceptually discussing or reporting empirical evidence on the components that may affect the activation, management and evaluation of co-production. Articles on knowledge co-production or political participation were excluded. Papers related to private sector literature were excluded where

2  RESEARCH AIM AND METHODS 

15

results did not provide transferable insights to the public sector. This step returned 348 articles. The third step was the in-depth qualitative analysis of the 348 articles thus selecting 266 relevant papers for the comprehensive framework. Appendix 1 provides a brief snapshot of the main descriptive statistics related to these papers (growth across time, journals, and the research methods used by both private and public sector papers). The findings of the qualitative analysis were classified into macro-­ categories that commonly characterised collaborative governance frameworks such as context, management and outcomes. The articles’ contributions were classified according to four main macro pillars: (i) external context, which includes variables belonging to the environment that creates opportunities and constraints, affecting how the collaborative initiative unfolds; (ii) a set of initial conditions and drivers, separate from the context, that can be either conducive or unfavourable to the implementation of co-production; (iii) management and implementation of the collaborative initiative, and (iv) the effects of co-production, or the final results or outcomes. An inductive approach was adopted to identify the analytical components of each pillar and to investigate their relationships.

2.3   Enhancing the Understanding of Co-production: A Comprehensive Framework The review of the relevant literature identified the analytical components of each pillar of co-production: general context, antecedents, management and outcomes of co-production. These insights are consolidated into a comprehensive framework (Fig. 2.2) that can advance understanding of how the process unfolds from a holistic perspective, and the underexplored interrelation dynamics at play. The framework distinguishes the general context from the antecedents, the latter being more directly related to co-production activation, management and outcomes. In particular, the general context includes variables belonging to the environment, which creates opportunities and constraints, and affects how the co-production initiative unfolds. The antecedents identified are classified as pertaining to the lay actors, the regular provider and the service that is co-produced.

16 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

GENERAL CONTEXT state and governance traditions, regulatory framework, nature of welfare state, availability of resources – economical, social and infrastructural CO-PRODUCTION ANTECEDENTS Lay actors demographic and socioeconomic characteristics, motivational factors, sociopsychological factors, resource availability Regular provider organization degree of citizens’ orientation, officials’ acceptance of an active role of lay actors, organizational culture

Co-produced service continuity and duration, easy of activities, perception of service saliency

CO-PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT Institutional arrangements service delivery channels, formal rules, intensity, size and scope Planning

CO-PRODUCTION OUTCOMES Lay actors satisfaction, empowerment, awareness, learning, costs, externalities

Communication strategies modes, use of ICT Management of lay actors training, motivation-building, socialization and group identity building Management of professionals training, motivations mechanism Leadership public and community leaders Accountability & performance measurement horizontal vs vertical

Regular service provider cost efficiency, effectiveness impact on workforce, environmental uncertainty, trust

Community value for community, value for society, social economic impact

Fig. 2.2  The comprehensive framework of co-production activation, management and evaluation

It is worth noting that both the general context and the antecedents of co-production are not only relevant for activating co-production, they may also influence the collaboration dynamics, and condition the final outcomes for the co-producers or the wider community. They create several challenges that should be addressed though the levers of co-­production management. They often act in combination rather than in isolation. Co-production management includes institutional arrangements, planning, communication strategies, the management of lay actors and professionals, leadership, and accountability and performance management systems, which play a key role in success or failure, and the sustainability of the co-produced service. Co-production poses specific challenges that require distinctive management systems and tools compared to traditional hierarchical organisations, and also compared to other collaborative governance arrangements.

2  RESEARCH AIM AND METHODS 

17

Finally, the framework integrates the outcomes according to the three categories of stakeholders: the lay actors, the regular service provider, and the community. This pillar is particularly relevant given that the reviewed literature considers co-production as an end benefit in itself, but does not provide a clear categorisation of the outcomes. This part of the framework can be used as a blueprint for developing a multidimensional performance measurement system to monitor the real effect of co-production initiatives. The framework helps to identify interactions between the three components. While the characteristics of the general context and the antecedents can affect the co-production outcomes, the co-production management levers can both address some of the challenges stemming from the context and antecedents, and shape the final outcomes. The latter will also feedback into the antecedents (e.g., level of participant trust). This framework therefore offers academics and practitioners a comprehensive and updated conceptual scheme to better understand the key factors, and their interactions, which lead a co-production initiative to succeed. The full list of articles and their classification into the four pillars are reported in Appendix 2. The following chapters will further investigate the pillars of the framework and their analytical components, providing evidence of the research gaps and the areas that need further investigation. Chapter 3 analyses the findings from the general context and co-production antecedents and discusses the factors that impinge on the activation of co-production. Chapter 4 focuses on the systems and tools necessary to manage and implement co-production, which is the second component of the model. Chapter 5 systematises the findings on co-production outcomes.

References Agarwal, P.K. 2013. 311 Services: A Real-World Perspective. Public Administration Review 73 (5): 702–703. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12115. Aschhoff N., and R. Vogel. 2018. Value conflicts in co-production: governing public values in multi-actor settings. International Journal of Public Sector Management 31 (7): 775–793. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-08-20170222. Brandsen T., B. Verschuere, and T. Steen. 2018. Co-Production and Co-Creation Engaging Citizens in Public Services. New york: Routledge.

18 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Bryson, J.M., B.C. Crosby, and M.M. Stone. 2015. Designing and Implementing Cross-Sector Collaborations: Needed and Challenging. Public Administration Review 75 (5): 647–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432. Cepiku, D. 2017. Collaborative Governance. In The Routledge Handbook of Global Public Policy and Administration. Oxon/New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Dudau A., R. Glennon, and B. Verschuere. 2019. Following the yellow brick road? (Dis)enchantment with co-design, co-production and value co-creation in public services. Public Management Review 21 (11): 1577–1594. https://doi. org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1653604. Honingh, M., E. Bondarouk, and T. Brandsen. 2018. Co-production in Primary Schools: A Systematic Literature Review. International Review of Administrative Science 86 (2): 222–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852318769143. Järvi, H., A. Kähkönen, and H. Torvinen. 2018. When Value Co-Creation Fails: Reasons That Lead to Value Co-Destruction. Scandinavian Journal of Management 34 (1): 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2018.01. 002. Loeffler, E., and T.  Bovaird. 2020. Assessing the Impact of Co-production on Pathways to Outcomes in Public Services: The Case of Policing and Criminal Justice. International Public Management Journal 23 (2): 205–223. https:// doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2019.1668895. Moher, D., A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D.G. Altman, and The PRISMA Group. 2009. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. PLoS Medicine 6 (7). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pmed.1000097. Mustak, M., E. Jaakkola, A. Halinen, and V. Kaartemo. 2016. Customer participation management: Developing a comprehensive framework and a research agenda. Journal of Service Management 27 (3): 250–275. https://doi. org/10.1108/JOSM-01-2015-0014. Palumbo, R. 2016. Contextualizing Co-production of Health Care. A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Public Sector Management 29 (1): 72–90. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-07-2015-0125. Sicilia M., A. Sancino, T. Nabatchi, and E. Guarini. 2019. Facilitating co-production in public services: management implications from a systematic literature review. Public Money & Management 39 (4): 233–240. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/09540962.2019.1592904. Tranfield, D., D.  Denyer, and P.  Smart. 2003. Towards a Methodology for Developing Evidence-Informed Management Knowledge by Means of Systematic Review. British Journal of Management 14 (3): 207–222. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375.

2  RESEARCH AIM AND METHODS 

19

Verschuere, B., T. Brandsen, and V. Pestoff. 2012. Co-production: The State of the Art in Research and the Future Agenda. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23: 1083–1101. https:// doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8. Voorberg, W. H., V. J. J. M. Bekkers, and L. G. Tummers. 2014. A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review 17 (9): 1333–1357. https://doi. org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505. Williams, B. N., S. Kang, and J. Johnson. 2016. (Co)-Contamination as the Dark Side of Co-Production: Public Value Failures in Co-Production Processes. Public Management Review 18 (5): 692–717. https://doi.org/10.108 0/14719037.2015.1111660.

CHAPTER 3

Activation of Co-Production: General Context and Antecedents

Abstract  This chapter focuses on the first two components of the framework proposed in the book: the general context and the antecedents of co-production. While the general context includes the characteristics of the environment in which co-production takes place, the antecedents of co-production consist of those aspects that are necessary, according to the main co-production research, for co-production to happen. The antecedents to co-production are categorised by considering the extent to which they are related to lay actors, the regular service provider, and the nature of the co-produced service. Keywords  General context • Antecedents • Lay actors • Regular service provider • Nature of public services

3.1   Introduction This chapter focuses on the first two components of the proposed framework: the general context and the antecedents of co-production. The general context includes the characteristics of the environment in which co-production takes place. In addition to general context, the chapter provides an analysis of the antecedents of co-production, categorising them in three major groups: antecedents related to the lay actors, to the regular provider, and to the nature of the service being co-produced. Several

© The Author(s) 2020 D. Cepiku et al., The Co-production of Public Services, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60710-4_3

21

22 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

antecedents are identified with specific reference to lay actors, such as demographic and socio-economic characteristics, motivational factors, socio-psychological characteristics, and resource availability. The characteristics of the regular service provider, which may influence co-­production activation, include the degree of user orientation, the acceptance of the lay actor as a partner in the public service cycle, and organisational culture. The last set of antecedents is related to the specific characteristics of the co-produced service, in terms of its continuity and duration, the extent to which tasks are easy to perform, and service salience. The chapter is structured as follows: Sect. 3.2 presents the effect of the general context on co-production; Sect. 3.3 presents the antecedents of co-production by differentiating between lay actors, service providers, and the specific characteristics of the co-produced services; and Sect. 3.4 reports some final conclusions.

3.2   General Context Co-production is embedded in, and interacts with, the general context in which it takes place. The general context involves the characteristics of the environment in which practices of co-production occur and includes several elements, such as the availability of resources, state and governance traditions, regulatory frameworks, and socio-economic and cultural issues (Jo and Nabatchi 2016). Research has shown that co-production is more likely to take place when governments cannot afford the provision of public services due to a lack of financial resources (Munoz et  al. 2014). Resources in terms of social capital (Andrews and Brewer 2013) and basic public service infrastructure (Chaebo and Medeiros 2017) are also identified as necessary to support co-production. State and governance traditions have been highlighted in the literature of public administration and management as features that affect how public administration works in a country (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011). As such, they also affect co-production. Two particularly relevant dimensions involved in shaping state and governance traditions are the sharing of authority with non-governmental parties and the culture of governance (Lijphart 2012). A consultative style, with a strong decentralisation of power and involvement of stakeholders in the decision-making process, is contrasted with an authoritative style, in which decisions are mostly made by governments. An authoritative tradition may facilitate the implementation of reforms intended to introduce co-production, whereas in the

3  ACTIVATION OF CO-PRODUCTION: GENERAL CONTEXT… 

23

presence of consultative state tradition changes in the service cycle are made slower by the involvement of many actors in the public service cycle (Voorberg et al. 2017). There is more room for the involvement of citizens in public service provision in countries in which the state plays a less central role (Parrado et al. 2013). A state’s governance culture can be characterised as either ‘Rechtsstaat’oriented or as ‘public interest’-oriented (Pierre 1995). In the Rechtstaat culture of governance the state is mainly concerned with the preparation, promulgation, and enforcement of laws. In the ‘public interest’ model, rules and regulations are less dominant, and pragmatism and flexibility are prized above technical expertise (Pollitt and Bouckaert 2011). Management changes, including the active involvement of lay actors, are thus more difficult in the ‘Rechtsstaat’ model since the adoption of new rules and procedures is required (Sudhipongpracha and Wongpredee 2016; Voorberg et al. 2017). The role of the regulatory framework, with respect to co-production, has been explicitly discussed by Szescilo (2018, pp. 137–138) who explains that law “may serve as a useful instrument for promotion of co-production and dissemination of it, as well as a tool for mitigating its adverse effects”, playing the role of both enabler and guardian of public values. The law is an enabler of co-production in that allows the transfer of responsibilities from public organisation to lay-actors, while it is a guardian of public values in that it allows the discriminations that may be triggered by some co-production initiatives to be countered. The role of the regulative framework in fostering co-production by specifying the rules for the involvement of lay-actors has been also highlighted by Chaebo and Medeiros (2017). Finally, the nature of welfare reforms seems to affect co-production in different ways (Pestoff 2009; Rantamäki 2017). A welfare reform that emphasises economically rational individuals who maximise their utilities tends to play down values of reciprocity and solidarity and thus co-­ production (Pestoff 2009). Conversely, when people are worried about the future of public welfare services, new participatory approaches are more likely to manifest (Rantamäki 2017). The characteristics of the general context can positively or negatively influence a co-production initiative, how it unfolds and its outcomes, not only when co-production is first launched, but also at different points along the way.

24 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

3.3   Antecedents of Co-Production Several papers have identified a wide range of factors that may be either conducive or obstructive to the activation of co-production. The analysis of these factors is particularly valuable because it identifies several conditions that are under the control of public organisations and that, if properly managed, help facilitate the initiation and implementation of co-production (see Chap. 4). Existing studies on co-production offer a wide list of potentially relevant drivers, but we lack a comprehensive and systematic analysis of them. In this chapter, we classify them into three main categories: antecedents related to lay actors, antecedents related to the regular  service provider, and antecedents related to the service co-produced. 3.3.1  Antecedents Related to Lay Actors Lay actors are one of the participants involved in co-production. Regardless of whether they act as citizens (i.e., “member(s) of a geographic or political community”), as clients (i.e., “recipient(s) of public services to which he or she is legally entitled and for which he or she is not required to directly pay the providing organisation”), or as customers (i.e., “recipient(s) of public services for which he or she must directly pay the providing organisation”) (Nabatchi et al. 2017, p. 769), their willingness to work collaboratively with the regular producers of services is essential in order for co-production to take place (Alford 1998, 2002; Nabatchi et al. 2017). The literature has identified several factors related to lay actors that can affect the activation of co-production. In this chapter, we group these factors in the following categories: demographic and socio-economic characteristics, motivational factors, socio-psychological characteristics, and resource availability. The main findings of previous research are presented and discussed for each category.  emographic and Socio-Economic Characteristics D Many studies have investigated the relationship between the propensity to co-produce, and the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of lay actors, including gender, age, education, employment status, and the relationship between lay actors and other stakeholders. However, the results so far are inconclusive, with studies not consistently reporting significant associations between these demographic factors and the propensity to adopt co-production behaviours.

3  ACTIVATION OF CO-PRODUCTION: GENERAL CONTEXT… 

25

Women seem more prone to engage in co-production than men (e.g., Christensen and Lægreid 2005; Einolf 2010; Alonso et  al. 2019). According to Christensen and Lægreid (2005), the underlying reason is that public sector organisations tend to employ a great proportion of women and that women are generally more involved in works concerning care and health responsibilities, in which co-production is common (see also Parrado et al. 2013; Alford and Yates 2016). These services usually involve individual co-production, which leads Bovaird et  al. (2015) to observe that women tend to be more involved in individual co-­production, and that this gender effect does not appear to be significant for collective co-production. Women also seem more willing to co-produce when the government officials and administrators involved are women (Riccucci et  al. 2016), showing a link between co-production and representative bureaucracy in a local recycling initiative.1 However, a replication study in the context of emergency preparedness did not find this symbolic representation effect (Van Ryzin et al. 2017). The contrasting results of the two studies seem to suggest that the symbolic effects of gender representation depend on the specific characteristics of the policy context in which co-­ production is activated. The positive effect of representative bureaucracy holds when: (a) lay actor input is requested from local (as opposed to state or federal) governments; (b) the tasks to be performed require low effort and commitment; and (c) the services to be co-produced are salient for most citizens (Van Ryzin et al. 2017). Older people tend to participate more than younger citizens (Christensen and Lægreid 2005; Erlinghagen and Hank 2006), but, again, Bovaird et al. (2015) emphasise that this is true for individual, not collective, co-production. The fact that elderly people are more likely to co-­ produce is due at least to two reasons: they tend to trust government more, as they have seen the birth and development of the welfare state (Christensen and Lægreid 2005), and they may also have fewer time

1  According to the theory of representative bureaucracy, passive representation, i.e. the extent to which “the agency’s workforce reflects the demographics of the clients or citizens it serves” (Riccucci et al. 2016, p. 121), can affect the trust and cooperation of citizens. This effect, defined as “symbolic representation” (Gade and Wilkins 2013; Meier and NicholsonCrotty 2006; Riccucci et al. 2014; Theobald and Haider-Markel 2009; cit. Riccucci et al. 2016), rests on the assumption that when population demographic characteristics (in terms of gender, race, ethnicity, etc.) are reproduced within the public sector organisation, citizens are more likely to see that organisation as more legitimate.

26 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

constraints. The greater efforts required to build the social contacts needed to activate collective co-production compared to individual participation seem to hinder the willingness of older lay actors to engage in collective co-production (Bovaird et al. 2015). The relationship between age and co-production appears to be affected by the type of service. For example, Alford and Yates (2016) observe that older people tend to prefer keeping an eye on other’s properties (which confirms Parrado et al.’s [2013] results about older people being more likely to co-produce safety), or to go to the doctor for a health check, while younger people are more likely “to tell others not to drop rubbish or let their dog foul the street”, “walk, cycle, and use public transport”, and “to take care of a sick family member or friend” (p. 169). Parrado et al. (2013) report that there is a difference in the engagement of women and elderly citizens in co-production across services and countries (in particular, across UK, Germany, Denmark, France and the Czech Republic). Women engage more often in the co-production of health services in all the countries studied, and are more prone to co-­ produce in the safety and environment domains only in the Czech Republic, Denmark, and Germany. Age is more broadly associated with willingness to act as co-producers in Germany and France, whereas, as mentioned above, older people are particularly prone to engage in safety in all countries. Studies of co-production have analysed the impact of three main socio-­ economic variables: the level of education, income, and employment status. The results emerging from the analysis are inconclusive. For instance, with specific reference to the level of education, Parrado et al. (2013) analyse general user and community co-production and find a weak and inconsistent relationship between education and co-production. The authors distinguish between university educated and non-university educated citizens and find that more educated people are less likely to co-produce. Bovaird et al. (2015) adopt a finer-grained view and observe a small positive effect of education level on collective co-production, but not on individual co-production. Alonso et  al. (2019) show that more educated people (those holding a diploma, first degree, higher degree or equivalent) are more likely to engage in co-production activities. According to Alford and Yates (2016), education has little or no significant impact on co-­ production. The association between employment status and co-­production levels is also weak and inconsistent. For instance, a positive relationship with safety co-production emerges in Germany and the UK, whereas a

3  ACTIVATION OF CO-PRODUCTION: GENERAL CONTEXT… 

27

negative relationship for environmental co-production is found in Denmark (Parrado et al. 2013). Bovaird et al. (2015) show that an inactive workforce appears to be more likely to participate only in collective co-production. Alford and Yates (2016) report that students are more prone to co-produce environmental services, whereas retired people community safety-related services. Their study also  demonstrates that being retired and unemployed does not affect higher levels of group co-production (thus, they argue, time availability is not a distinctive determinant of group co-production). People with lower incomes seem to be less likely to co-produce (Warren et  al. 1984). This may due to the fact that people with lower incomes tend to be squeezed by daily needs, do not perceive themselves as able to affect the world they live in, and may lack the knowledge and material resources needed for co-production (Jakobsen 2013; Jakobsen and Andersen 2013). A final socio-economic factor investigated by research into co-­ production is related to the interaction-related antecedents, intended as the interaction that people have with others, meaning other people (such as citizens) or with service-provider organisations. With reference to citizen-­to-citizen interaction, the literature has shown that “the environment in which you are living and the networks in which you are engaging … (for) example, church attendance, group membership, and marital status” can affect co-production (Van Eijk and Steen 2016, p.  322) by enhancing social capital (Putnam 1993) and networking. As discussed by Van Eijk and Steen (2016), while networking can impose limits on participation because of the need to decide which network to attend, it also increases opportunities for participation. Interacting with other citizens can, thus, incentivise greater participation (see also Mustak et al. 2016). At the same time, it appears that even the type and quality of relationship between a service provider and citizens can foster higher participation (Mustak et al. 2016). Motivational Factors Psychological and organisational literature streams have identified the different motivational factors that drive the behaviours of people and organisations (see Ryan and Deci 2000; Grant 2008). In particular, this literature recognises that the desire to make an effort can stem from three main

2

 Van Eijk and Steen (2016) use the label “social connectedness”.

28 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Table 3.1  Overview and summary conceptualisation of motivational factors for co-production Self-centred motivations Material motivation Non-material motivation

Community-centred motivation

Extrinsic motivation (e.g., monetary) – Extrinsic motivations (e.g., sociality, Prosocial behaviour normative commitment) Intrinsic motivation

sources, which are grouped in three main types: extrinsic, intrinsic and prosocial motivations. Extrinsic motivation is the desire to make an effort triggered by outcomes external to the work itself (Amabile 1993; Brief and Aldag 1977); intrinsic motivation is the desire to make an effort based on interest and enjoyment of the task itself (Ryan and Deci 2000); and, prosocial motivation is the desire to expend effort to make a positive difference in other people’s life (Grant 2008). The effect of these different types of motivations have been studied in the co-production literature. Table 3.1 shows how these motivations are used in the co-production literature. It is worth noting that the classifications employed emphasise the distinction between self-centred and community-centred motivations. This distinction reflects the fact that lay actors may be motivate by the attainment of personal benefits, or/and by an orientation towards the public interest. The “desire of tangible benefits”, such as money, goods or services, is qualified by Alford (2009) as material self-interest, and ascribed by Van Eijk and Steen (2016) to self-centred motivations. This desire is considered to be effective “for client co-production only when the work is easy to prescribe and verify” (Alford 2009, p. 192) and when private value (i.e., “private consumption of goods and services”, Alford 2009) is consumed (Alford 2002, 2009). Recently, Voorberg et al. (2018) have shown that small financial rewards (2 euro/hour) have no effect on co-production, while higher financial rewards (10 euro/hour) have a positive but marginal effect. Previous studies have also recognised the important role of other types of extrinsic motivations. In particular, studies have highlighted sociality as

3  ACTIVATION OF CO-PRODUCTION: GENERAL CONTEXT… 

29

a driver of co-production (Alford 2002, 2009).3 Sociality is described by Van Eijk and Steen (2016) as a self-interested motivation and refers to the desire to socialise (Sharp 1978; Alford 2002; Verschuere et  al. 2012; Vanleene et al. 2017). It makes people participating “even if it disadvantages them financially, because they enjoy the company, fellowship and esteem of others” (Alford 2009, p. 27). Among non-material motivations there are also normative values, which imply that citizens are guided by receiving “intangible rewards or satisfaction with morally good actions” (Parrado et  al. 2013, p.  89). Normative purposes—defined also as “expressive values” (Alford 2002)— may contrast with material self-interest. Co-production, according to a normative perspective, relies on “people’s beliefs about what is normatively right or about what principles should guide our society, which may differ from their views of what is in their own self-interest” (Alford 2009). In sum, those supporting the idea that normative purposes are key coproduction antecedents emphasise that citizens tend to co-produce because their belief systems claim it to be right (Alford 2002; Verschuere et al. 2012). For instance, citizens may be morally prone to co-produce when they experience poor conditions in a policy area (Parrado et  al. 2013; Bovaird et al. 2015, 2016; Alonso et al. 2019). Like sociality (and tangible desires), normative values can also be considered self-centred and extrinsic motivations for coproducing. Intrinsic motivations have also been noted in the literature on co-­ production. They are described as an example of non-material (Alford 2002) and self-centred motivation for citizen engagement, and may even be required for co-production (Fledderus and Honingh 2016). Self-­ determination theory suggests that intrinsically motivated people co-­ produce because they enjoy performing co-production activities (Fledderus 2015), and the activities they are involved in attract their interest, enhance their self-esteem and self-determination (Alford 2002). Intrinsically motivated people are thus interested in the work itself, which differentiates them from extrinsically motivated people who engage in view of the achievement of outcomes external to the work itself, such as rewards or recognition (Amabile 1993; Brief and Aldag 1977; Grant 2008). In general, the 3  For the sake of completeness, “sociality” is defined in Alford (2009) as “the enjoyment we derive from associating with others, from receiving their approval and concomitantly from not being subject to their disapproval” (p. 27) and as “a person’s needs for affiliation with social groups, a sense of belonging, or the positive regard of others” (p. 66).

30 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

psychological and organisational literature has suggested that intrinsic motivation may reduce when extrinsic incentives are provided, but this aspect has not been specifically investigated with respect to co-production. Finally, studies on co-production have suggested the importance of prosocial motivation in affecting the willingness to co-produce. Prosociality is when people are motivated to make effort in order to benefit, or increase, the well-being of others (Ryan and Connell 1989; Grant 2008; Hattke and Kalucza 2019). It is therefore qualified as a community-centred motivation (see Van Eijk and Steen 2016). There is an agreement that although there are several types of co-producers (van Eijk and Steen 2014; Barbera et al. 2016; van Eijk et al. 2017), they all tend to be driven more by prosociality than by other self-centred motivations. Socio-Psychological Factors In this section, we focus on the socio-psychological factors that have proven to impinge on the willingness of lay actors to co-produce: trust and self-efficacy. Trust can be defined as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the action of another party based on the expectation that the other party will perform a particular action important to the trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control the other party” (Mayer et  al. 1995, p. 712). This definition of trust includes two main elements: benevolent expectations and the willingness to be vulnerable. Trust and co-production have been shown to be linked by a two-way relationship. On the one hand, it has been observed that co-production, and specifically the inclusion of users in the service delivery process, supports and helps restoring higher trust in governments (Fledderus et  al. 2014). On the other hand, trust in a regular provider of services has been identified as a precondition for involvement (Hsu et  al. 2013; Parrado et al. 2013; Fledderus et al. 2015; Fledderus and Honingh 2016; Li and Hsu 2018). Fledderus et  al. (2014), however, note that triggering co-­ production on the side of the lay actor requires not only trust in government, but also trust in other people. More in general, the authors distinguish particularised trust (of which trust in government is a form) and generalised trust, which refers to “interpersonal” or “social” trust. Different sources of trust are identified in the literature. Fledderus et al. (2014), drawing on Lewicki and Bunker (1996), distinguish between calculus-­ based trust, knowledge-based trust, and identification-based trust. A cognitive approach lies behind calculus- and knowledge-based

3  ACTIVATION OF CO-PRODUCTION: GENERAL CONTEXT… 

31

trust, which, indeed, are supported respectively by controlling, contracting and competition, and by performance management and transparency. Conversely, identification-based trust essentially relies on emotional drivers that can be enhanced when interacting in networks and through direct participation. Identification-based trust characterises the new public governance model and, thus, is the form of trust that seems to be associated with the willingness to co-produce (Fledderus et al. 2014). Self-efficacy is another social psychological characteristic that has been investigated in the co-production literature in order to explain variation in the co-production levels of lay actors. Two main typologies of self-efficacy are conceptualised: political and individual. While political self-efficacy tends to be related to the sense of efficacy of people “in general” (i.e., the extent to which a person thinks that ordinary citizens or people can make a difference; e.g., Parrado et  al. 2013; Bovaird et  al. 2015)4, individual self-efficacy involves “people’s beliefs in their capabilities to produce given attainments” (Bandura 2006, p. 307), and is thus a more subjective factor that captures the judgement that an individual has about his or her competence to coproduce. Thus, it is different from the actual ability to coproduce, which, as will be explained below in the “Resource availability” section, depends on the objective possession of knowledge, skills and material resources needed to co-produce. Individual self-efficacy and citizen ability and knowledge are also linked: on the one hand, a higher capacity to conduct a task tends to enhance the individual sense of self-­ efficacy (Alford and Yates 2016); on the other hand, the association between the actual knowledge of how to co-produce and the level of co-­ production is dependent on the strength of self-efficacy, and is stronger when lay actors feel less efficacious (Thomsen 2017). Studies of co-production have shown that both types of self-efficacy are associated with co-production. Lay actors with lower perceptions of political (Parrado et al. 2013; Bovaird et al. 2015, 2016; Alford and Yates 2016) and individual (Fledderus and Honingh 2016; Thomsen 2017; Alonso et al. 2019) self-efficacy are less likely to participate. Political self-efficacy, in particular, has proven to be a relevant determinant of co-production across different sectors (e.g., across services related

4  In the political science field, political self-efficacy is defined as “the feeling that individual political action does have, or can have, an impact upon the political process” (Campbell et al. 1954, quoted in Madsen 1987 and in Bovaird et al. 2015).

32 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

to public safety, the environment, and health in Parrado et al. 2013), across different countries (Parrado et al. 2013; Bovaird et al. 2015), and in the case of both individual and collective co-production (Bovaird et al. 2015). From this latter point of view, however, the relationship is stronger for collective co-production, maybe because in this case barriers to citizen engagement tend to be higher and only people with a high political self-­efficacy are particularly motivated and can overcome these barriers. However, several contributions show that the positive relationship between self-efficacy and co-production exists only under certain circumstances, such as according to age and gender (Parrado et al. 2013; Bovaird et al. 2015). Resource Availability The ability of lay actors to co-produce is essential for engaging them in coproducing public services. The knowledge, skills, and material resources needed to co-produce define this ability (Sharp 1980; Brudney and England 1983; Percy 1984; Alford 2009; Jakobsen 2013; Thomsen 2017). The availability of knowledge, skills, and materials may depend on the socio-economic situation of lay actors, however, public sector organisations can lift the constraints on the ability of lay actors to co-produce by providing them with relevant information and basic resources (Folz and Hazlett 1991; Jakobsen 2013; Jakobsen and Andersen 2013; Thomsen 2017). The relevance of knowledge and skills becomes even more important for some services, such as in case of professionalised services, where information asymmetry is high and citizens need to be trained in order to co-produce (Cepiku and Giordano 2014). Levine and Fisher (1984) provide an interesting categorisation of relevant skills that can enhance citizen participation. Their analysis refers to the development and maintenance of community-based crime prevention groups, and thus further research is needed to extend the different skills typologies to other potential co-­ production activities. The two authors identify reporting skills (which imply the capacity to observe, being familiar with an activity/location), communication skills (ability to converse with other people), and having past experience in an organisation or in a group, leadership skills and technical skills. Box 3.2 (see Sect. 3.3.3) provides an interesting example of the above considerations. Another resource, whose availability affects the willingness to co-­ produce, is time. More specifically, the lack of time availability seems to constrain co-production (Hunt et al. 2012; Jakobsen 2013; Morton and Paice 2016; Kaehne et al. 2018). For example, although in the context of

3  ACTIVATION OF CO-PRODUCTION: GENERAL CONTEXT… 

33

consumer co-production, Hunt et al. (2012) remind us in their literature review that consumers’ time, in addition to skills, is a key antecedent of co-production. Morton and Paice (2016), in their analysis of the co-design process of an integrated care system in England, find that one of the key elements for engaging lay partners (i.e., patients and carers) in the co-­ production of an integrated toolkit is the recruitment of “effective and committed” patients and carers. Time availability is identified as a necessary quality in order for lay actors to be included in the co-design initiative. Nance and Ortolano’s (2007) study of community participation in urban sanitisation in Northeastern Brazil demonstrates that residents participated on the basis of, among other factors, time availability. Time is also a key resource for co-production in the case of immigrant parents coproducing language support for their children (Jakobsen 2013).

Box 3.1  Parents’ Co-Production on the Education of Their Children During COVID-19

What: It appears that, on average, (working) parents have been spending 17 hours per week on caring about their children’s education and distance learning during COVID-19 (BCG 2020). While parental assistance in the education of their children is not new, distance learning has made the major issues behind this co-production activity clearer, mainly in terms of the equity and actual capacity of parents to support their children’s academic success. The problems linked to the co-production of education during COVID-19 have attracted great attention, to the extent that many guidelines have been issued by governments around the world on how to support children’s education during a lockdown.5 Who: Parents have been involved in the education of their children around the world, but women tend to assume greater responsibility than their male partners (BCG 2020). (continued) 5  See, for example, the supporting guidance issued by the UK Department for Education to help parents provide learning assistance to their children during the pandemic (https:// www.gov.uk/guidance/supporting-your-childrens-education-during-coronaviruscovid-19), as well as the tips provided by UNICEF (https://www.unicef.org/ coronavirus/5-tips-help-keep-children-learning-during-covid-19-pandemic).

34 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Box 3.1  (continued)

Why: School-care has always been a task for parents but the COVID-19 crisis and the lockdown have imposed a high burden on parents who have been increasingly involved in coproducing their children’s education, in order to guarantee this fundamental service. How: Parents are asked to assist their children with their education: ensuring that they complete their homework, join online sessions with teachers, and participate in online exams. Key learning points: • The importance of equity issues, particularly in distance learning (connectivity/connection, availability of technological resources), which raises the question of how to equip families to support remote learning and how to support lower-income families who tend to have more connection difficulties. • Parental skills and competences (are they sufficient to provide help to their children?) Source: Authors’ elaboration based on information from a report published by the Boston Consulting Group in May, 2020. A survey was conducted involving 3,055 working parents in five countries (the US, UK, Italy, Germany, and France) from March 20, 2020 to April 3, 2020 and press articles (https://www.forbes.com/sites/ colinseale/2020/05/19/parent-involvement-has-always-matteredwill-the-covid-19-pandemic-finally-make-this-the-new-normal-in-k12-education/)

3.3.2  Antecedents Related to the Regular Service Provider The “co” side of the term co-production refers to the fact that public service delivery involves two types of participants: the lay actors and the regular providers. The antecedents pertaining to lay actors have been presented and discussed above. In this section, we devote attention to the regular providers, the public agencies, public agents, or service providers serving in a professional capacity (Nabatchi et al. 2017). We focus on those factors that have been shown to impinge on the attitude of regular providers to activate co-production. The managerial levers that can be used in order to

3  ACTIVATION OF CO-PRODUCTION: GENERAL CONTEXT… 

35

facilitate co-production activation, implementation and outcomes are at the core of Chap. 4. Co-production is an arrangement that requires new ways of looking at citizens: they are active actors participating as co-producers at the operational stage of the service production process, where their contribution is an essential component of service delivery (Osborne and Strokosch 2013), and also at the strategic and design stage. This is a big change compared to the more traditional vision, in which citizens are seen as the passive recipients of services (Fugini et al. 2016). Not all regular providers are likely to embark on this new journey. The attitudes of politicians and professionals are crucial to co-production (Voorberg et al. 2018). In this respect, Cassia and Magno (2009) show that citizen orientation of mayors is a predictor of the intention to implement co-production. Other studies point to the importance of the acceptance of the lay actor as  a partner by professionals (Bovaird 2007;  Ryan 2012; Sicilia et  al. 2016). This acceptance appears to be complex. The awareness of the regular service provider of having specialised knowledge on the service may be a barrier to this acceptance. Moreover, it is apparently not easy for professionals to abandon their traditional modus operandi and to embrace new practices that require new skills and tools and imply some ceding of power to lay actors. For instance, Kershaw et al. (2018), in a study conducted in the Australian museum sector, found that professional museum bodies, while they were able to theoretically imagine co-­production in museums, were not able to implement co-production at the practice level. This is mainly due to “the professional nature of museum work” (Kershaw et al. 2018), where curators do not accept the idea of sharing their power and control with citizens, and lack co-production skills, thereby providing evidence of resistance to change. While expertise is a key issue and the cause of potential scepticism about co-production by the regular service provider, Shandas and Messer (2008) demonstrate that citizens can successfully support experts, as in the case of engineering projects such as watershed planning and management. From this perspective, public experts should make efforts to improve citizen abilities to understand the technicalities behind the co-production activities. This implies that the regular provider assumes a role as facilitator of citizen competences, adding (and not substituting) its expertise to the contribution of the lay actors (Frieling et al. 2014).

36 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Another characteristic of the regular provider is its organisational culture. Organisational culture is a broad concept that incorporates shared assumptions, beliefs, values, meanings, and artefacts (Green 1988; Deshpande and Webster 1989). In general, organisational culture is seen as an important variable when investigating the adoption of new tools and arrangements. Authors have suggested that a propensity toward co-­ production is also dependent on culture. A culture adverse to innovation, flexibility and risk-taking can hamper co-production (Voorberg et al. 2015). 3.3.3   Antecedents Related to the Co-Produced Service The specific characteristics of the co-produced service can also affect the introduction of co-production, especially because they are closely related to the extent to which lay actors are willing to co-produce. Services characterised by the continuity and the duration of need, such as childcare, preschool services, basic and higher education, elderly care, care of people with handicaps, housing, and health care (Pestoff 2012, 2014), are more suitable for co-production. Pestoff (2012) distinguishes between enduring and non-enduring (social) services based on the durability of the service (see also Bovaird and Loeffler 2012). Co-production is more suitable for enduring services because it is a potential way for citizens to influence the development of the service, especially when the provider cannot be easily exchanged (Pestoff 2012). Services may also require lay actors to perform different types of activities. If the service to be co-produced involves undertaking activities that can be easily performed, co-production becomes more likely. However, not only the tasks to be performed should be easy, but also for citizens to get involved (Pestoff 2012; Bovaird et al. 2015; Vanleene et al. 2017). This is defined as ease of involvement and depends on different aspects, including “the distance to the service provider, the information available to citizens about the service and its provision, etc.” and is “related to the time and effort required for citizens to become involved” (Pestoff 2012, p. 1110). Thus, the less effort required, the more lay actors will likely co-produce. Similarly, Bovaird et al. (2015, p. 8) suggest that higher levels of engagement can be found when citizens “do not need much effort or interaction with third parties”. The ease of involvement is part of co-production management and will be discussed more broadly in Chap. 4. However, it is worth noting that the ease of the activities to be performed and the ease

3  ACTIVATION OF CO-PRODUCTION: GENERAL CONTEXT… 

37

of involvement are interrelated, in that the ease of activities should be supplemented by an equally simple process of involvement to foster co-­ production. The project reported in Box 3.2 on a co-production experience in the Municipality of Rimini in 2011, and still ongoing, provides evidence of the types of activities where citizen co-production has proven to be successful. Although not representing a characteristic of the service itself, service salience has also been shown as a subjective determinant of co-production. Service salience is the importance attached to a service by the lay actors. It has been identified as a very important factor in explaining the lay actors’ willingness to co-produce. Van Eijk and Steen (2016, p. 39) consider service salience as the “starting point for a citizen’s consideration about whether to engage” in co-production. Extant research has differentiated between personal salience and social salience (Van Eijk and Steen 2016). Personal salience is defined as the perception of an individual about the impact of a service on his/her life, or on lives of family members or friends (Pestoff 2012; Van Eijk and Steen 2016) such as when a service allows the resolution of an individual problem, and this can enhance people’s willingness to participate (van Eijk and Steen 2014, 2016). For example, Chaebo and Medeiros (2017), in their study on how co-production was used to combat the vector of dengue, the Aedes Aegypti mosquito, in the municipality of Campo Grande, South Brazil, and based on a content analysis and crisp-set QCA methods, found that one of the issues that increases citizens’ time and effort in co-production is the recognition of the importance, reality and imminence of the problem faced. Social salience is defined as “the perceived importance of the issue to one’s neighborhood, community or even society at large” (Van Eijk and Steen 2016, p. 30). This concept refers to the importance that is attached to a service according to its ability to generate valued benefits that are enjoyed more broadly and communally (Alford 2002, 2014). Personal and social salience sometimes are independent of each other, but sometimes they overlap in that what is individually relevant may also be relevant for the society at large.

3.4   Concluding Remarks This chapter focused on the first two components of the proposed co-­ production framework: the general context and the antecedents of co-­ production. The main findings related to these two components were

38 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Box 3.2  Co-Production in the Municipality of Rimini (Italy): The Ci.Vi.Vo. Project

What: Citizens who volunteer in order to make their neighbourhood a better place to live (e.g., cleaning up parks and cutting the grass; supporting school teachers in organising school activities; organising small maintenance interventions; providing support to increase the use of digital platforms, websites, apps, communication systems among citizens in order to improve the relationship between the local residents and the municipality). Who: All citizens aged between 18 and 80 years can participate in a CI.VI.VO. group or launch a new CI.VI.VO. group. Immigrants and refugees (as long as they have a residence permit) are welcome. 70 Ci-Vi.Vo. have been created, including 900 volunteers. In 2019, 3100 citizens participated in public events related to the project. Why: The origins of the project lie in the initiative of resident, Pier Paolo Cavessi, “who was dissatisfied with the state of a park near his home and decided to take action to clean up the park” (Governance International website on the initiative6). You can learn how CI.VI. VO. emerged in this case study. How: Citizens can support local government in performing activities beneficial to the community, such as collaborating in sport organisations and recreational events, creating socialising moments, and maintaining public parks. The Municipality of Rimini provides insurance coverage for the volunteers and logistical assistance, as well as the materials needed for carrying out the agreed activities. Key learning points: • The initiative started because a citizen was dissatisfied with the quality of a service (bad state of a park), so a moral and normative reason appears to lie behind the beginning of this project. • The co-production activities could also be suggested by individual citizens, so as to valorise each citizen’s interest in a specific service and individual skills and expertise. (continued) 6  http://www.govint.org/good-practice/case-studies/civivo-in-rimini-how-volunteersmake-their-neighbourhood-a-better-place-to-live/; latest info on the project available on the Ci.Vi.Co. website (http://www.civivo.it).

3  ACTIVATION OF CO-PRODUCTION: GENERAL CONTEXT… 

39

Box 3.2  (continued)

• The co-production activities tend to be easy to perform; people can easily join the Ci.Vi.Vo. project and perform co-production activities (indeed, they can ask for information and join the project by sending an email to the Ci.Vi.Vo. group or to the municipality). • The public sector organisation supports citizens by providing them with the materials needed to conduct the co-production activities (importance of resource availability).

analysed by drawing on the papers included in our database. With specific respect to the general context, several factors have been highlighted in the existing literature, such as the availability of resources, the state and administrative traditions, and the nature of welfare reforms. These factors can positively or negatively affect a co-production initiative, how it unfolds and its outcomes. This suggests that co-production is a context-­dependent phenomenon, and paves the way for further analyses aimed at investigating the relevance of other elements, their relative importance and the magnitude and direction of their effect on the practices of co-production. In addition to the general context, several more direct factors that can be either conducive or unfavourable to the implementation of co-­ production were identified. They were classified into three main categories: factors related to lay actors, factors related to the regular provider, and factors related to the services to be provided (see Table 3.2 for a synthesis and the main literature). It is worth noting that scholars have focused their research mainly on lay actors, investigating the conditions that affect their willingness to participate in co-production activities, however, the results are often inconclusive. This suggests that further analyses are needed to reveal a better and more detailed picture of how the factors identified are related to co-production. It is also not clear how the different antecedents interact in facilitating or hampering the behaviour of lay actors. Antecedents related to regular providers and the type of services have attracted less attention, and therefore, further research could address how these characteristics and their combination may affect the activation of co-production, its management and the consequent outcomes.

40 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Table 3.2  Synthesis of the antecedents of co-production Main categorisation of antecedents

Type of antecedents

Description

Lay actors (citizens, clients, customers)

Demographic and socio-­ economic characteristics

Co-producer gender, age, education, employment status, and the relationship between lay actors and other stakeholders

Motivational factors

Main theoretical assumptions and/or evidences

Main references

Alford and Yates (2016), Alonso et al. (2019), Bovaird et al. (2015, 2016), Christensen and Lægreid (2005), Jakobsen (2013), Jakobsen and Andersen (2013), Parrado et al. (2013), Riccucci et al. (2016), Van Eijk and Steen (2016), Van Ryzin et al. (2017), Warren et al. (1984) Material self-interest Alford (2002, The main 2009), Bovaird (e.g., monetary or reasons (needs, et al. (2015, wants) that drive goods rewards) has been shown in many 2016), Hattke people to and Kalucza cases not to co-produce: (2019), Parrado positively affect - material et al. (2013), self-interest vs. co-production Sharp (1978), mainly due to non-material crowding-out effects Van Eijk and motivations Steen (2016), - self-centred vs. Non-material Vanleene et al. motivations community-­ (2017), (prosocial centred behaviours, intrinsic Verschuere et al. motivations (2012) motivations, - extrinsic, sociality, normative intrinsic and commitment) foster prosocial co-production motivations Contrasting evidence: some studies found a positive relationship between these variables and co-production, while others found non-­ significant effects

(continued)

3  ACTIVATION OF CO-PRODUCTION: GENERAL CONTEXT… 

41

Table 3.2  (continued) Main categorisation of antecedents

Type of antecedents

Description

Main theoretical assumptions and/or evidences

Main references

Lay actors (citizens, clients, customers)

Socio-­ psychological factors

Refers to: - Trust towards specific entities and organisations (i.e., particularised trust, such as in government) and trust in other citizens or strangers (i.e., generalised trust, representing trust in people in general) - Perceived self-efficacy, intended as people belief that they (individual self-efficacy) or citizens in general (political self-efficacy) can make a difference through participating

Self-efficacy fosters co-production, although this appears to be true under specific circumstances

Alford and Yates (2016), Alonso et al. (2019), Bovaird et al. (2015, 2016), Fledderus and Honingh (2016), Fledderus et al. (2015), Hsu et al. (2013), Li and Hsu (2018), Parrado et al. (2013), Thomsen (2017)

(continued)

42 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Table 3.2  (continued) Main categorisation of antecedents

Type of antecedents

Description

Main theoretical assumptions and/or evidences

Main references

Lay actors (citizens, clients, customers)

Resource availability

Possession of knowledge and basic tools to properly perform the required tasks or time availability

When lay actors have access to information and basic resources, they are more likely to co-produce Lack of time availability seems to constrain co-production

Regular service provider

Degree of citizen orientation

Politicians’ attitude to care about citizens’ opinions and to involve them Acceptance of Professionals’ an active role openness to partnering and of lay actors coordinating with the lay actors, by moving from the status quo to new ways of public services delivery Organisational The system of culture assumptions, beliefs, values, meanings that support the adoption of new tools and arrangements

Politicians’ citizen orientation is conducive to the implementation of co-production Specialised knowledge on the service, reluctance to share power, and difficulties to change traditional modus operandi are barriers to co-production.

Alford (2002, 2009), Brudney and England (1983), Cepiku and Giordano (2014), Hunt et al. (2012), Jakobsen (2013), Jakobsen and Andersen (2013), Kaehne et al. (2018), Morton and Paice (2016), Percy (1984), Sharp (1980), Thomsen (2017) Cassia and Magno (2009)

Propensity to innovation, flexibility, and risk-taking support co-production

Bovaird (2007), Ryan (2012), Sicilia et al. (2016), Kershaw et al. (2018)

Voorberg et al. (2015)

(continued)

3  ACTIVATION OF CO-PRODUCTION: GENERAL CONTEXT… 

43

Table 3.2  (continued) Main categorisation of antecedents

Type of antecedents

Servicerelated characteristics

Continuity and duration

Description

The service is characterised by the fact that the beneficiary benefits from it for a long period of time and/or cannot switch provider easily The extent to Ease of which service activities to be performed provision requires citizens to undertake simple activities

Perception of service salience

Main theoretical assumptions and/or evidences

Main references

More endurable services imply that beneficiaries are more interested in their development and quality and thus tend to co-production more

Bovaird and Loeffler (2012), Pestoff (2012, 2014)

When the tasks to be performed are easy, lay actors are more willing to co-produce This should also be accompanied by ease of involvement People tend to The service is co-produce more perceived as important by the when a service is relevant to them, co-producer such as when it has a direct impact on their life or on the lives of people they care about (e.g., family members, friends)

Bovaird et al. (2015), Pestoff (2012), Vanleene et al. (2017)

Pestoff (2012), Van Eijk and Steen (2014, 2016)

Importantly, while some contextual elements and antecedents can be more easily managed through specific co-production management levers, others require more time to be modified and some are not directly influenced/modifiable. The next chapter considers co-production management.

References Alford, J. 1998. A Public Management Road Less Travelled: Clients as Co-Producers of Public Services. Australian Journal of Public Administration 57 (4): 128–137. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.1998.tb01568.x.

44 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

———. 2002. Defining the Client in the Public Sector: A Social-Exchange Perspective. Public Administration Review 62 (3): 337–346. https://doi. org/10.1111/1540-6210.00183. ———. 2014. The multiple facets of co-production: Building on the work of Elinor Ostrom. Public Management Review 16 (3): 299–316. https://doi. org/10.1080/14719037.2013.806578. Alford, John. 2009. Engaging Public Sector Clients: From Service-Delivery to Co-Production. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Alford, J., and S. Yates. 2016. Co-Production of Public Services in Australia: The Roles of Government Organisations and Co-Producers. Australian Journal of Public Administration 75 (2): 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1467-8500.12157. Alonso, J.M., R.  Andrews, J.  Clifton, and D.  Diaz-Fuentes. 2019. Factors Influencing Citizens’ Co-Production of Environmental Outcomes: A Multi-­ Level Analysis. Public Management Review 21 (11): 1620–1645. https://doi. org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619806. Amabile, T.M. 1993. Motivational Synergy: Toward New Conceptualizations of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation in the Workplace. Human Resource Management Review 3: 185–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/ 1053-4822(93)90012-S. Andrews, R., and G.A. Brewer. 2013. Social Capital, Management Capacity and Public Service Performance. Public Management Review 15 (1): 19–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2012.662445. Bandura, Albert. 2006. Guide for Constructing Self-Efficacy Scales. In Self-Efficacy Beliefs of Adolescents. Greenwich: Information Age Publishing. Barbera, C., M.  Sicilia, and I.  Steccolini. 2016. What Mr. Rossi Wants in Participatory Budgeting: Two Rs (Responsiveness and Representation) and Two Is (Iteration and Inclusiveness). International Journal of Public Administration 39 (13): 1088–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/0190069 2.2016.1177839. Boston Consulting Group. 2020. Easing the COVID-19 Burden on Working Parents. Available at https://www.bcg.com/it-it/publications/2020/helping-working-parents-ease-the-burden-of-covid-19. Last Accessed 28 July 2020. Bovaird, T. 2007. Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Co-production of Public Services. Public Administration Review 67(5): 846–60. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773. Bovaird, T., and E.  Loeffler. 2012. From Engagement to Co-Production: The Contribution of Users and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23: 1119–1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6. Bovaird, T., G.G. Van Ryzin, E. Loeffler, and S. Parrado. 2015. Activating Citizens to Participate in Collective Co-Production of Public Services. Journal of Social Policy 44 (1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279414000567.

3  ACTIVATION OF CO-PRODUCTION: GENERAL CONTEXT… 

45

Bovaird, T., G. Stoker, T. Jones, E. Loeffler, and M.P. Roncancio. 2016. Activating Collective Co-Production of Public Services: Influencing Citizens to Participate in Complex Governance Mechanisms in the UK. International Review of Administrative Sciences 0 (0): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0020852314566009. Brief, P., and R.J.  Aldag. 1977. The Intrinsic-Extrinsic Dichotomy: Toward Conceptual Clarity. The Academy of Management Review 2 (3): 496–500. https://doi.org/10.2307/257706. Brudney, J.L., and R.E. England. 1983. Toward a Definition of the Co-Production Concept. Public Administration Review 43 (1): 59–65. https://doi. org/10.2307/975300. Campbell, A., G.  Gurin, and W.E.  Miller. 1954. The Voter Decides. Evanston: Row, Peterson. Cassia, F., and F.  Magno. 2009. Public Services Co-Production: Exploring the Role of Citizen Orientation. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences 1 (3): 334–343. https://doi.org/10.1108/17566690911004249. Cepiku, D., and F.  Giordano. 2014. Co-Production in Developing Countries: Insights from the Community Health Workers Experience. Public Management Review 16 (3): 317–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.822535. Chaebo, G., and J.J. Medeiros. 2017. Conditions for Policy Implementation Via Co-Production: The Control of Dengue Fever in Brazil. Public Management Review 19 (10): 1381–1398. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016. 1209231. Christensen, T., and P.  Lægreid. 2005. Trust in Government: The Relative Importance of Service Satisfaction, Political Factors, and Demography. Public Performance & Management Review 28 (4): 487–511. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/15309576.2005.11051848. Deshpande, R., and F.E. Webster. 1989. Organizational Culture and Marketing: Defining the Research Agenda. The Journal of Marketing 53 (1): 3–15. https:// doi.org/10.2307/1251521. Einolf, C.J. 2010. Gender Differences in the Correlates of Volunteering and Charitable Giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 40 (6): 1092–1112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010385949. Erlinghagen, M., and K. Hank. 2006. The Participation of Older Europeans in Volunteer Work. Ageing & Society 26: 567–584. https://doi.org/10.1017/ S0144686X06004818. Fledderus, J. 2015. Building Trust Through Public Service Co-Production. International Journal of Public Sector Management 28 (7): 550–556. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-06-2015-0118. Fledderus, J., and M.E.  Honingh. 2016. Why People Co-Produce Within Activation Services: The Necessity of Motivation and Trust. An Investigation of Selection Biases in a Municipal Activation Programme in the Netherlands. International Review of Administrative Sciences 82 (1): 69–87. https://doi. org/10.1177/0020852314566006.

46 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Fledderus, J., T. Brandsen, and M. Honingh. 2014. Restoring Trust Through the Co-Production of Public Services, a Theoretical Elaboration. Public Management Review 16 (3): 424–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/1471903 7.2013.848920. ———. 2015. User Co-Production of Public Service Delivery: An Uncertainty Approach. Public Policy and Administration 30 (2): 145–164. https://doi. org/10.1177/0952076715572362. Folz, D.H., and J.M.  Hazlett. 1991. Public Participation and Recycling Performance: Explaining Program Success. Public Administration Review 51 (6): 526–532. https://doi.org/10.2307/976603. Frieling, M., S. Lindenberg, and F.N. Stokman. 2014. Collaborative Communities Through Co-Production: Two Case Studies. The American Review of Public Administration 44 (1): 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012456897. Fugini, Mariagrazia, Enrico Bracci, and Mariafrancesca Sicilia. 2016. Co-Production in the Public Sector. Experiences and Challenges, PoliMI SpringerBriefs. Cham: Springer International Publishing. Gade, D.M., and V.M.  Wilkins. 2013. Where Did You Serve? Veteran Identity, Representative Bureaucracy, and Vocational Rehabilitation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23 (2): 267–288. https://doi. org/10.1093/jopart/mus030. Grant, A.M. 2008. Does Intrinsic Motivation Fuel the Prosocial Fire? Motivational Synergy in Predicting Persistence, Performance, and Productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology 93 (1): 48–58. https://doi. org/10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.48. Green, S. 1988. Understanding Corporate Culture and Its Relation to Strategy. International Studies of Management and Organization 18 (2): 6–28. https:// doi.org/10.1080/00208825.1988.11656478. Hattke, F., and J. Kalucza. 2019. What Influences the Willingness of Citizens to Co-Produce Public Services? Results from a Vignette Experiment. Journal of Behavioral Public Administration 2 (1): 1–14. https://doi.org/10.30636/ jbpa.21.60. Hsu, J.S., Y.W.  Hung, Y.H.  Chen, and H.H.  Huang. 2013. Antecedents and Consequences of User Co-Production in Information System Development Projects. Project Management Journal. 44 (2): 67–87. https://doi. org/10.1002/pmj.21330. Hunt, D.M., S. Geiger-Oneto, and P.E. Varca. 2012. Satisfaction in the Context of Customer Co-Production: A Behavioral Involvement Perspective. Journal of Consumer Behaviour 11 (5): 347–356. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.1370. Jakobsen, M. 2013. Can Government Initiatives Increase Citizen Co-Production? Results of a Randomized Field Experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 23 (1): 27–54. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mus036.

3  ACTIVATION OF CO-PRODUCTION: GENERAL CONTEXT… 

47

Jakobsen, M., and S.C.  Andersen. 2013. Co-Production and Equity in Public Service Delivery. Public Administration Review 73 (5): 704–713. https://doi. org/10.1111/puar.12094. Jo, S., and T. Nabatchi. 2016. Getting Back to Basics: Advancing the Study and Practice of Co-Production. International Journal of Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1177840. Kaehne, A., A.  Beacham, and J.  Feather. 2018. Co-Production in Integrated Health and Social Care Programmes: A Pragmatic Model. Journal of Integrated Care 26 (5). https://doi.org/10.1108/JICA-11-2017-0044. Kershaw, A., K.  Bridson, and M.A.  Parris. 2018. Encouraging Writing on the White Walls: Co-Production in Museums and the Influence of Professional Bodies. Australian Journal of Public Administration 77 (1): 19–34. https:// doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12245. Levine, C.H., and G. Fisher. 1984. Citizenship and Service Delivery: The Promise of Co-Production. Public Administration Review 44: 178–187. https://doi. org/10.2307/975559. Lewicki, R.J., and B.B. Bunker. 1996. Developing and Maintaining Trust in Work Relationships’. In Trust in Organizations: Frontiers of Theory and Research. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Li, M.H., and C.H.C.  Hsu. 2018. Customer Participation in Services and Employee Innovative Behavior: The Mediating Role of Interpersonal Trust. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 30 (4): 2112–2131. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2016-0465. Lijphart, A. 2012. Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven: Yale University Press. Madsen, D. 1987. Political Self-Efficacy Tested. The American Political Science Review 81 (2): 571–581. https://doi.org/10.2307/1961970. Mayer, R.C., J.H.  Davis, and F.D.  Schoorman. 1995. An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. Academy of Management Review 20 (3): 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335. Meier, K.J., and J. Nicholson-Crotty. 2006. Gender, Representative Bureaucracy, and Law Enforcement: The Case of Sexual Assault. Public Administration Review 66 (6): 850–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006. 00653.x. Morton, M., and E.  Paice. 2016. Co-Production at the Strategic Level: Co-Designing an Integrated Care System with Lay Partners in North West London, England. International Journal of Integrated Care 16 (2): 1–4. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.2470. Munoz, S.A., J. Farmer, J. Warburton, and J. Hall. 2014. Involving Rural Older People in Service Co-Production: Is There an Untapped Pool of Potential Participants? Journal of Rural Studies 34: 212–222. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.02.001.

48 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Mustak, M., E.  Jaakkola, A.  Halinen, and V.  Kaartemo. 2016. Customer Participation Management: Developing a Comprehensive Framework and a Research Agenda. Journal of Service Management 27 (3): 250–275. https:// doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-01-2015-0014. Nabatchi, T., A. Sancino, and M. Sicilia. 2017. Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The Who, When, and What of Co-Production. Public Administration Review 77 (5): 766–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765. Nance, E., and L. Ortolano. 2007. Community Participation in Urban Sanitation: Experiences in Northeastern Brazil. Journal of Planning Education and Research 26 (3): 284–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X06295028. Osborne, S.P., and K. Strokosch. 2013. It Takes Two to Tango? Understanding the Co-Production of Public Services by Integrating the Services Management and Public Administration Perspectives. British Journal of Management 24: 31– S47. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.12010. Parrado, S., G.G.  Van Ryzin, T.  Bovaird, and E.  Löffler. 2013. Correlates of Co-Production: Evidence from a Five-Nation Survey of Citizens. International Public Management Journal 16 (1): 85–112. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10967494.2013.796260. Percy, S. 1984. Citizen Participation in the Co-Production of Urban Services. Urban Affairs Quarterly 19 (4): 431–446. https://doi. org/10.1177/004208168401900403. Pestoff, V. 2009. Towards a Paradigm of Democratic Participation: Citizen Participation and Co-Production of Personal Social Services in Sweden. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 80 (2): 197–224. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8292.2009.00384.x. ———. 2012. Co-Production and Third Sector Social Services in Europe: Some Concepts and Evidence. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23: 1102–1118. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11266-012-9308-7. ———. 2014. Collective Action and the Sustainability of Co-Production. Public Management Review 16 (3): 383–401. https://doi.org/10.1080/1471903 7.2013.841460. Pierre, J. 1995. Bureaucracy in the Modern State: An Introduction to Comparative Public Administration. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. Pollitt, C., and G. Bouckaert. 2011. Public Management Reform: A Comparative Analysis-New Public Management, Governance, and the Neo-Weberian State. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Putnam, R.D. 1993. What Makes Democracy Work? National Civic Review 82 (2): 101–107. https://doi.org/10.1002/ncr.4100820204. Rantamäki, N.J. 2017. Co-Production in the Context of Finnish Social Services and Health Care: A Challenge and a Possibility for a New Kind of Democracy. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 28: 248–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-016-9785-1.

3  ACTIVATION OF CO-PRODUCTION: GENERAL CONTEXT… 

49

Riccucci, N.M., G.G.  Van Ryzin, and C.F.  Lavena. 2014. Representative Bureaucracy in Policing: Does It Increase Perceived Legitimacy? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24 (3): 537–551. https://doi. org/10.1093/jopart/muu006. Riccucci, N.M., G.G.  Van Ryzin, and H.  Li. 2016. Representative Bureaucracy and the Willingness to Co-Produce: An Experimental Study. Public Administration Review 76 (1): 121–130. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar. 12401. Ryan, B. 2012. Co-Production: Option or Obligation? Australian Journal of Public Administration 71 (3): 314–324. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2012.00780.x. Ryan, R.M., and J.P.  Connell. 1989. Perceived Locus of Causality and Internalization: Examining Reasons for Acting in Two Domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 57 (5): 749–761. https://doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.57.5.749. Ryan, R.M., and E.L.  Deci. 2000. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25: 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020. Shandas, V., and W.B.  Messer. 2008. Fostering Green Communities Through Civic Engagement: Community Based Environmental Stewardship in the Portland Area. Journal of the American Planning Association 74 (4): 408–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360802291265. Sharp, E. 1978. Citizen Organizations and Participation in Law Enforcement Advocacy and Co-Production: The Role of Incentives. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Sharp, E.B. 1980. Participation: The Co-Production Concept Toward a New Understanding of Urban Services and Citizen. The American Review of Public Administration 14 (2): 105–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 027507408001400203. Sicilia, M., E.  Guarini, A.  Sancino, M.  Andreani, and R.  Ruffini. 2016. Public Services Management and Co-Production in Multi-Level Governance Settings. International Review of Administrative Sciences 82 (1): 8–27. https://doi. org/10.1177/0020852314566008. Sudhipongpracha, T., and A.  Wongpredee. 2016. Decentralizing Decentralized Governance: Community Empowerment and Co-Production of Municipal Public Works in Northeast Thailand. Community Development Journal 51 (2): 302–319. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsv026. Szescilo, Dawid. 2018. Legal Dilemmas of Co-Production and Co-Creation. In Co-Production and Co-Creation. Engaging Citizens in Public Services, 137–144. Milton Parks: Routledge. Theobald, N.A., and D.P. Haider-Markel. 2009. Race, Bureaucracy, and Symbolic Representation: Interactions Between Citizens and Police. Journal of Public

50 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Administration Research and Theory 19 (2): 409–426. https://doi. org/10.1093/jopart/mun006. Thomsen, M.K. 2017. Citizen Co-Production: The Influence of Self-Efficacy Perception and Knowledge of How to Co-Produce. American Review of Public Administration 47 (3): 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740 15611744. Van Eijk, C.J.A., and T.P.S.  Steen. 2014. Why People Co-Produce: Analysing Citizens’ Perceptions on Co-Planning Engagement in Health Care Services. Public Management Review 16 (3): 358–382. https://doi.org/10.108 0/14719037.2013.841458. ———. 2016. Why Engage in Co-Production of Public Services? Mixing Theory and Empirical Evidence. International Review of Administrative Sciences 82 (1): 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314566007. Van Eijk, C.J.A., T.P.S. Steen, and B. Verschuere. 2017. Co-Producing Safety in the Local Community: A Q-Methodology Study on the Incentives of Belgian and Dutch Members of Neighbourhood Watch Schemes. Local Government Studies 43 (3): 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2017.1281803. Van Ryzin, G.G., N.M.  Riccucci, and L.  Huafang. 2017. Representative Bureaucracy and Its Symbolic Effect on Citizens: A Conceptual Replication. Public Management Review 19 (9): 1365–1379. https://doi.org/10.108 0/14719037.2016.1195009. Vanleene, D., B.  Verschuere, and J.  Voets. 2017. Co-Producing a Nicer Neighbourhood: Why Do People Participate in Community Development Projects? Lex Localis—Journal of Local Self-Government 15 (1): 111–132. https://doi.org/10.4335/15.1.111-132(2017). Verschuere, B., T. Brandsen, and V. Pestoff. 2012. Co-Production: The State of the Art in Research and the Future Agenda. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23: 1083–1101. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8. Voorberg, W.H., V.J.J.M. Bekkers, and L.G. Tummers. 2015. A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the Social Innovation Journey. Public Management Review 17 (9): 1333–1357. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/14719037.2014.930505. Voorberg, W.H., V.J.J.M. Bekkers, K. Timeus, P. Tonurist, and L.G. Tummers. 2017. Changing Public Service Delivery: Learning in Co-Creation. Policy and Society 36 (2): 178–194. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1323711. Voorberg, W.H., S. Jilke, L.G. Tummers, and V.J.J.M. Bekkers. 2018. Financial Rewards Do Not Stimulate Co-Production: Evidence from Two Essxperiments. Public Administration Review 78 (6): 864–873. https://doi.org/10.1111/ puar.12896. Warren, R., M.S.  Rosentraub, and K.S.  Harlow. 1984. Co-Production, Equity, and the Distribution of Safety. Urban Affairs Review 19 (4): 447–464. https:// doi.org/10.1177/004208168401900404.

CHAPTER 4

Implementing and Managing Co-Production

Abstract  This chapter focused on the management of coproduction, and addressed the many challenges to collaboration between professionals and lay actors. Collaboration management is not supposed to contradict ‘organically grown’ coproduction approaches and can be organised by both sides of the collaboration. The way coproduction is managed directly affects the sustainability and quality of interaction, and indirectly affects the final outcomes for the coproducers, the service and the community as a whole. The literature on coproduction management is reviewed and organised around seven levers: institutional arrangements, planning, communication strategies, management of lay actors, management of professionals, leadership, and accountability. Gaps in the literature are noted, and the coproduction literature is compared with the theories of collaborative governance. Keywords  Co-production management • Quality of collaboration • Institutional design • Planning • Communication • Leadership • Accountability • Performance management • Training • Motivation

© The Author(s) 2020 D. Cepiku et al., The Co-production of Public Services, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60710-4_4

51

52 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

4.1   Introduction Studies underlining the relevance of co-production management to value creation are novel in the public sector (Cepiku 2017) and in service encounter research (Grönroos 2011). There seems to be a lack of tools and methods for applying and utilising the possibilities of co-production when moving from rhetoric to practice (Tuurnas 2015). The recent interest in the high complexity and failure rate of co-­ production, which may lead to value codestruction (Williams et al. 2016; Järvi et al. 2018), has paved the way for widespread agreement that the design and implementation of co-production initiatives affect the quality of collaboration and its outcomes (Cepiku 2017; Lamph et  al. 2018). Different types of interactions are expected to lead to different outcomes and the quality of the interactions between the parties is fundamental for value co-creation (Echeverri and Salomonson 2017). When public values are negatively affected by co-production it is called “co-contamination” (i.e., “anything harmful or undesirable added to that which is wholesome or unadulterated, in turn, making that service, process or product dirty, dangerous and impure”; Williams et al. 2016; see also Chap. 5). Williams et al. (2016) elucidate some of the mechanisms by which public value failures can occur, such as when the government exerts control over communication mechanisms to prevent the dissemination of information about decision-making, thereby limiting free and open public discourse about the direction of government policies or programmes. Another issue involves taking into account inequalities and historical differences in collective actions rather than simply enabling an equal playing field. Value co-contamination results from a misuse of resources during the interaction between regular providers and lay actors. This can take place either accidentally, when citizens are not sufficiently trained for coproducing a service, or intentionally such as when public officials abuse their positions of authority or citizens resort to vigilante justice. In a case study analysis, Williams et al. (2016) highlight the failure of both providers and users to work in a collaborative environment as equal partners. A lack of appropriate communication, operations without joint decisions; and cultural backdrop were identified as main obstacles. Comprehensive analyses of the ways in which co-production is managed are missing in the literature. Research is fragmented and focuses on

4  IMPLEMENTING AND MANAGING CO-PRODUCTION 

53

specific co-production management tools rather than comprehensive management systems. Their impact on outcomes is also seldom investigated. Many of the challenges above come from the general context and antecedents, as suggested in the previous chapter. The main management issues involve professionals, lay actors or both parties, and all may lead to value codestruction (Järvi et al. 2018). Co-production, similarly to other collaborative governance arrangements, poses specific challenges that require distinctive management systems and tools (Cepiku and Mastrodascio 2019; Cepiku et al. 2020).

4.2   Co-Production Management Levers Researchers and practitioners interested in co-production management can look at two literature streams. The first is the co-production literature. Focusing on both public and private sectors, it offers insights into several instruments, although it is missing a comprehensive overview of collaboration management. The second is the wider and more mature literature on collaborative governance (Cepiku 2017; Rosenbloom and Gong 2013; Bryson et  al. 2015). While co-production is a collaborative arrangement and there are several frameworks on collaborative governance in general (see the review by Bryson et al. in 2015), they do not acknowledge differences between collaboration among institutions and collaboration among individuals. The collaboration management literature, much inspired by the network management literature, is more developed than the co-production management literature, especially regarding leadership, planning and accountability regimes, however, its focus is on procedural and institutional arrangements, often neglecting actor-related actions such as the management (motivation, training, socialisation) of lay actors and professionals and the effects of intensity, size and scope of co-production on their motivation. The consequences of such a different scope on interorganisational configurations rather than interpersonal relations, at the heart of co-­ production, manifest in the difference in terms of the variables investigated by the two fields. The strategies put forward in the co-production literature to deal with the complexity of collaboration include both traditional management

54 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

tools and innovative arrangements, more suitable to voluntary collaboration. “Co-production calls for renewed organisational structures and managerial tools, especially concerning the evaluation of co-production” (Tuurnas 2015). Very few articles take an integrated view of co-production management/implementation; most focus on one or two strategies and examine their impact on co-production outcomes. An exception is Frieling et al. (2014), who propose a co-production management model based on the view of co-production as a process that includes eight steps. Some research into co-production assumes a partial professional or lay actor perspective. Bettencourt et al. (2002), with reference to knowledge-­ intensive business services, also adopt a process view of co-production, with a focus on the lay actor side. The authors propose some performance-­ enhancing tools at the disposal of the service provider that may be used to positively affect the user’s role clarity, motivation, and/or knowledge, skills, and abilities. Such tools include: lay actor selectivity; lay actor training, education, and socialisation; and project leadership and lay actor performance evaluation. According to the authors, the same factors that are critical to enhancing employee job performance should be present in order for clients to perform their role successfully in a co-production initiative. The co-production manager should ask what specific tasks and behaviours lay actors should be doing during each phase of the service delivery process, and enable them to actually perform their role responsibilities effectively. In summary, an effective co-production initiative relies on lay actors knowing what is expected of them (role clarity), being motivated to engage in desired behaviours (motivation), and having the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to fulfil their responsibilities (Bettencourt et al. 2002). Tuurnas (2015) provides another partial view of the co-production management process, which focuses on the professional side of co-­ production and provides managerial, organisational, cultural and processual notions for supporting the professional side of co-production. Hoyer et al. (2010) proposed a conceptual framework of consumer co-­ creation in the private sector. Conceptualising the outcomes of co-creation in firm-related results (for example, efficiency and effectiveness and increased complexity) and customer-related results (for example, fit with consumer needs, relationship building, engagement and satisfaction), they reveal specific consumer motivators (financial, social, technological and psychological) as well the as firm stimulants and impediments affecting the degree of co-production and its outcomes.

4  IMPLEMENTING AND MANAGING CO-PRODUCTION 

55

Most of the research on co-production management focuses on specific tools or is limited to a partial professional or lay actor view. We analyse the findings produced so far and systemise them around seven co-production management levers. 4.2.1  Institutional Arrangements This category of management levers includes the design and structure of service delivery channels, the formal rules governing the interaction between lay actors and regular providers, especially their professional staff, and the intensity, size and scope of the co-production initiative. In terms of service delivery channels (physical, on line, by telephone, etc.), Flores and Vasquez-Parraga (2015) note that offering co-­production as an option rather than as the only means of rendering service has a stronger positive impact on relational and economic value creation. Service delivery channels play a dual role in learning by customers in their role as co-producers (Field et al. 2012). While organisational and employee learning have been extensively studied, learning by lay actors in their role as co-producers is largely unexplored. Lay actor learning can be designed into the service delivery system by encouraging the use of channels with complementary learning effects and discouraging channel substitution. Including lay partners in co-design from the start, and at every level, is also important. Agreeing the principles of working together, providing support and continually recruiting lay representatives to represent their communities are key to effective co-production (Morton and Paice 2016). There are two design aspects that define the degree of co-production and affect service outcomes (lay actor satisfaction and efficiency) (Dong and Sivakumar 2015): • The participation process: whether it is a well-defined process with a known set of sequential and standardised procedures that enable lay actors to progress toward the goal; • The service output: output specificity refers to the degree to which the nature of the output is influenced by the person who provides the resource (e.g., service employee vs. lay actor): (1) generic when there is one common output and (2) specific when there are distinct outputs. Generic output refers to the expected output that is clearly defined and common regardless of whether it is provided by the service provider or the customer.

56 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

A structured participation process ensures decreased uncertainty and risks, enhanced perceived ability, and more equitable relationships. The improved transparency further minimises the communication cost and reduces the risks of miscommunication. The moderating effect of process structure on the co-production magnitude-satisfaction link is stronger for generic output than for specific output. The formal rules include of co-production eligibility criteria (selection of actors), definition of boundaries (selection of activities) and allocation of responsibilities. Among the principles for the successful management of collective co-production Brandsen and Helderman (2012) include the presence of: well defined boundaries and eligibility criteria; rules concerning the use of the provision, adapted to the local context; simple collective choice mechanisms and decision rules, often based on direct democracy; the accessible monitoring of the management board; and general meetings that also served as an effective social infrastructure for the resolution of potential conflicts. When designing co-production structures and processes, providers should verify that the citizens with the greatest need for the service, excluded or oppressed groups, are also affected (Jakobsen and Andersen 2013). The representative bureaucracy literature posits that the representativeness of providers affects the equity of results. Similarly, the representativeness of lay actors affects equity. Cepiku and Giordano (2014) provide evidence in support of this position (see Box 4.1).

Box 4.1  Lay Actor Selection: The Capacity-Representativeness Trade-Off

A co-production case study on the fight of malaria in Ethiopia well illustrates the importance of lay actor selection. Although being an entirely preventable and treatable illness, malaria still accounts for a high number of cases and deaths, not to mention public health expenditure and inpatient hospital admissions. The co-production experiment is aimed at addressing the issues of low access to health structures, inadequate diagnosis, low provider compliance and patient adherence to therapy; all these issues reduce the impact of the official treatment from 98 per cent clinical efficacy of the drugs to a 37 per cent real effectiveness. (continued)

4  IMPLEMENTING AND MANAGING CO-PRODUCTION 

Box 4.1  (continued)

The Tigray project, named after the Ethiopian region in which it was implemented, took place from 2005 to 2009. A global public– private network was created, including as partners Novartis Italia, the Italian Ministry of Health, the WHO, the Tigray Health Bureau, and two local hospitals. It made use of community health workers (CHWs) to provide the diagnosis and treatment of malaria. CHWs are subsistence farmers, members of the communities where they work, supported by the health system, and have shorter training than professional workers. During the project, 98 health workers were trained in malaria diagnosis and treatment, including 33 CHWs. With a limited US$569.901 investment, they treated 130,000 people in their villages; approximately 58 per cent of all suspected and confirmed cases of malaria. The collaboration-based strategy led to a 40 per cent reduction in malaria deaths compared to the traditional hospital-based approach. The caseload for health structures was reduced of one quarter and proper diagnosis saved US$ 1.41 per patient examined. The services provided by CHWs were assessed as more appropriate for health needs than those of clinic-based services, less expensive, and able to foster self-reliance and local participation. Notwithstanding the general success of the initiative, it was noted that the CHWs in Tigray were all male, with a mean age of 56 years, all married and all farmers. The non-representativeness of females resulted in a disproportionate service provided to women, although other elements (female illiteracy, heavy female household responsibilities, and cultural norms) might also have had a bearing. Females, even if less schooled than their male counterparts, may have a higher cultural tendency to conduct household visits and a greater attachment to the community. Self-selection might also be a problem, however, and revising the selection criteria might not be sufficient. The removal of other obstacles such as cultural and social elements (women bearing high workloads for instance) might require additional incentives and a longer timeframe. Source: With adaptations from Cepiku and Giordano (2014).

57

58 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Governments should consider personal characteristics when supporting co-production, otherwise there is a high probability of generating inequality. For instance, in the case of security packages, elderly and black people are vulnerable because they have limited options to co-produce security within their financial resources. A study of co-production in crime fighting activities based on a collaboration between residents and police officers suggested that higher-income households participated more than lower-­ income households. The same was true for younger people and victims of crime, who were both more willing to engage in co-production (Warren et al. 1984). Rules are important, especially when there are low levels of trust; in other words, co-production is more likely to succeed when the rules allow immediate sanction for failures of reciprocity, or when a third party enforces the commitment of coproducing parties (Workman 2011; Lierl 2016). Finally, co-production intensity, size and scope are important aspects of co-production management. The role of co-production intensity (defined as a lay actor’s subjective perception of the extent of effort and time invested within a specific process of coproducing a product or service) and the consequences of increasing lay actor input within co-production situations has largely been neglected in the public sector. The private-sector literature agrees that undesired effects manifest beyond a certain level, for instance, in terms of the customer’s self-efficacy and loyalty (Stokburger-­ Sauer et  al. 2016) and customer satisfaction with the co-production process (Haumann et al. 2015). Firms can mitigate these negative effects by employing both an economic and a relational value communication strategy and by offering immediate support when customers experience difficulties within the co-production process. Users respond differently to higher firm-assigned co-production workloads as a function of both individual differences (i.e., service literacy) and the conditions under which the workload is encountered (i.e., organisational support) (Mende et al. 2017). Pestoff (2014) suggests that co-production is more sustainable and easily managed in small group interactions in large organisations. Similarly, Sichtmann et al. (2011) show that a high degree of customer integration makes service provision more complex, for not only the service employees but also the customers: more knowledge is required for customers to be fully aware of the implications of their co-production.

4  IMPLEMENTING AND MANAGING CO-PRODUCTION 

59

4.2.2  Planning The strategic planning literature and the co-production (and the more general collaborative governance) literature have not interacted much. Rational approaches to planning in particular seem to clash with the absence of hierarchy that characterises voluntary collaborations. Nonetheless, there is probably deliberate and emergent planning at both the collaboration level and in individual collaborating organisations (Bryson et al. 2015). Frieling et  al. (2014) proposed a co-production management model built around planning. Their model includes eight steps: . Appointing an impartial process facilitator; 1 2. Ensuring government (and service provider) commitment to the process; 3. Definition of a joint improvement agenda with the lay actors and identification of their competences; 4. Formulation by the professionals of a comprehensive support plan; 5. Alignment of the assets and constraints of lay actors and professionals in a joint plan; 6. Reconfirmation of government and service provider commitment to the plan; 7. The joint implementation of the plan by lay actors and professionals; 8. The evaluation of the outcomes and of the process of implementing the plan by lay actors and professionals. Further research is needed on the characteristics of co-production, and the role of planning. 4.2.3  Communication Strategies One of the most frequently investigated co-production management strategies is the effectiveness of communication to generate common consensus about what two parties can do with and for each other (Owens and Cribb 2012; Hsieh and Hsieh 2015; Shandas and Messer 2008; Parrado et al. 2013; Sorrentino et al. 2017). For example, face-to-face communication helps establish a clear purpose (Essén et al. 2016). Communication strategies that either emphasise specific co-production value propositions

60 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

or highlight additional co-production service supplements can mitigate the negative effects of co-production intensity on customer satisfaction with the co-production process (Haumann et al. 2015). Owens and Cribb (2012) identify unresolved epistemic differences across professional and lay actors that may threaten a co-productive service. Similarly to the value co-contamination case study of public security examined in Williams et al. (2016), Owens and Cribb (2012) note that doctors and patients do not agree about the focus and purpose of healthcare. In such cases, regular producers and lay actors need to come to a shared understanding if their activities are to avoid being directed towards divergent or even conflicting ends. They suggest the adoption of a much enhanced, broader and richer, communicative relationship between doctors and patients. The doctor does not simply inform the patient and review their misunderstandings, but does genuinely develop and broaden their own understanding by learning from the ‘first hand’ vantage point of the patient. But such communication, the authors note, cannot be expected to smooth out all tensions in practice. Spanjol et al. (2015) also suggest that communication is not sufficient and should not aim at improving adherence per se, but rather at helping lay actors discover the characteristics of their environment and existing behavioural patterns that impinge on adherence to provider instructions. Thomsen and Jakobsen (2015) have shown that simply distributing information about why and how to co-produce did not have any effect on willingness to co-produce. The use of ICT and social media affords great potential for facilitating client co-production (Alford 2014; Lamph et al. 2018), easing communication and interaction (von Thiele 2016), and creating opportunities for the involvement of additional lay actors (Clark et  al. 2013; Clark and Guzman 2017; Meijer 2011, 2012, 2014). There is no reason to assume that digital technologies will always encourage co-production. Their impact is not straightforward and they can also be used to bypass interaction with citizens. Lember et al. (2019) define three potential scenarios: that digital technologies can augment, diversify or substitute for co-production. Sometimes service professionals and users have choices about how to design specific digital solutions for co-production, but in other situations they do not have this opportunity or lack the ability to sense and seize it. Often choices about new technologies are made by third parties, rather than those who would co-produce.

4  IMPLEMENTING AND MANAGING CO-PRODUCTION 

61

4.2.4  Management of Lay Actors Research into the management of lay actors is much more developed in the private than in the public sector. Bettencourt et al. (2002), with reference to knowledge-intensive business service firms, consider the management of lay actors to be a source of competitive advantage for firms that are able to truly manage their customers effectively as co-producers of the service solution. Other studies identify training, motivation-building (also aimed at enhancing self-efficacy), socialisation and group identity building as key levers of co-production management. Effective training gives lay actors the confidence needed to co-produce the new service and is particularly important in knowledge-intensive industries (Essén et al. 2016; see Box 4.2). The complicated process of motivating users to participate in co-­ production requires the managing subject to expend not only physical but also psychological and emotional efforts (Petukiene et  al. 2012). Using forms of motivation that affect active participation most strongly is linked with a huge responsibility of the managing subject. Petukiene et al. (2012) identify three material and eight non-material ways of motivating lay actors. The most commonly employed are appreciation expressed in person, appreciation/congratulations offered at public events; and events as a reward for client participation in the co-production of public services. It has been established that non-material forms of motivation are more closely linked with active client participation in services than the material forms. Personal contact between the managing subject and the client are particularly important in the client motivation process. When co-producers do not feel well understood or receive the impression that their efforts are not valued or useful, they might feel less inspired to actively contribute to and interact with co-production (Carey 2013; Essén et al. 2016; van Eijk et al. 2017; Ford and Dickson 2012; Van Eijk 2018; Parrado et al. 2013). Signs of appreciation can be highly diverse, such as articles in the local newspaper, organised drinks, feedback or spontaneous emails. Citizen training also contributes to citizen confidence and belief in co-production (Essén et al. 2016). Co-production is more likely to succeed if there is collective orientation among and between citizens and professionals (Frieling et al. 2014). Buttgen et al. (2012) suggest organisational socialisation to shape user beliefs and also to influence their motivation to co-produce. Formal

62 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

integration mechanisms might provide users with key role models; informal mechanisms instead might support exchanges between users. Guo et al. (2013) explore the role of consumer socialisation through three related processes: acquiring knowledge of the appropriate role behaviours or learning their role expectations (role clarity), acquiring relevant capabilities (task mastery), and identifying with an organisation’s goals (goal congruence). These have differential effects on three different types of consumer co-production behaviours (compliance, individual initiative, and civic virtue) and on their satisfaction with the organisation. This study also found that consumer co-production behaviours not only contribute to their well-being but also affect their satisfaction with the organisation. Strengthening group identity—by developing a shared vision of the outcome and the specification of concrete collective goals—is fundamental to establishing and maintaining sufficient levels of motivation in lay actors (Frieling et  al. 2014). It is especially important in collective co-production. Bettencourt et  al. (2002) suggest conducting a “job analysis” of lay actor responsibilities in a similar way to that done for firm employees. In other words, the following questions are posed: “What constitutes our clients’ ‘job’? What specific tasks and behaviours should our clients be doing during each phase of the service delivery process that would contribute positively to the quality of the knowledge-based solution delivered and the bottom line? Once we know what clients should be doing, how do we get them to actually perform their role responsibilities effectively?” Role clarity, motivation, and ability—the same factors that are critical to enhancing employee job performance—must be present in order for lay actors to perform their role successfully in a co-production initiative. Successful co-production relies on lay actors knowing what is expected of them, being motivated to engage in desired behaviours, and having the necessary knowledge, skills, and abilities to fulfil their responsibilities. In this regard the regular provider can offer: lay actor selectivity; training, education, and socialisation; and project leadership and performance evaluation for lay actors (Bettencourt et al. 2002). Such evaluation includes both emphasising a lay actor’s self-evaluation based upon common norms and values, and evaluating lay actors at the close of the relationship, based upon an extended view of client performance. Because lay actors are in a different relationship with the regular provider, compared to employees, the monitoring of their performance and related rewards may be seen as

4  IMPLEMENTING AND MANAGING CO-PRODUCTION 

63

intrusive and controlling, thus weakening collaboration. Bettencourt et al. (2002) suggest that patterns in lay actor performance problems should be noted against three dimensions, role clarity, motivation, and ability, and corrective steps implemented through selection, training/socialisation, and/or project leadership practices. Finally, although co-production is believed to increase control perceived by lay actors (Stevens et al. 2017; Pacheco et al. 2013), few scholars have examined how organisations design their co-production operations for types and levels of user control, a factor that could substantively influence the affective responses and experience of lay actors, and the service operation’s success (Esmark et  al. 2016; Wan et  al. 2016). Generally, greater user control means greater organisational uncertainty, which provider organisations may try to minimise by excluding particular groups of users (Fledderus et al. 2015).

Box 4.2  Management of Lay Actors: An Example in Healthcare

The study describes the attempt of Swedish rheumatology clinics to engage patients in the task of assessing and documenting their own health status systematically through a particular e-service called the Patient Self-Registration Service (PER). The authors identify two groups of patients. The first group of patients feel they must perform the task delegated to them mainly to facilitate and save time for healthcare professionals rather than for their own sakes, and that the self-service has no positive outcome in terms of patient empowerment. The second group includes patients with an optimistic experience. This study’s important contribution outlines the dual character of co-production and demonstrated that the way in which the co-­ production process is implemented contributes to creating experiences of empowerment. They identify three mediators. The first mediator involves establishing a clear purpose for the co-­production initiative and its potential through face-to-face communication between the physician and the patient. That is, it is not only information about how patients are to use the technology, but also more overarching information about why they should use it and the benefits they could derive from it are imperative for increasing (continued)

64 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Box 4.2  (continued)

positive experiences. Clarifying intentions is a way to reduce misconceptions and establish common ground where both patients and practitioners share the same goals in using the service. When there is a lack of clear purpose, patients typically feel that the self-service was introduced merely for cost-saving reasons, which leads to negative experiences. Second, patient training is found to be a key mediator. Practitioners and/or nurses show patients the various features of the technology as well as how to self-assess their joints. Training is particularly important but also challenging in knowledge intensive industries such as healthcare. Improper or incorrect training may seriously constrain co-production. In the study case, training seems to be particularly efficient when performed with a nurse, perhaps due to the reduction in hierarchical distance. Patients who do not receive training tend to feel disempowered and neglected. Third, co-usage is important to establish empowerment. Co-usage means that both patients and practitioners use the new technology and engage in a mutual exchange revolving around information stored in the PER.  Patients thus experience empowerment when they realise their input is truly incorporated and built upon in the subsequent care encounter. Source: with adaptations from Essén et al. 2016.

4.2.5  Management of Professionals Professionals play an important role in co-production in that they are responsible for addressing the efforts of lay actors and share with them the responsibility for services (Bovaird 2007), however, co-production challenges their traditional modus operandi and requires them to embrace new practices in which lay actors are equal partners with whom to share power over decisions and responsibilities (Verschuere et al. 2012; Williams et al. 2016). Public sector professionals are seen to lack the skills required to work with users and communities (Bovaird 2007), and reluctant to share power and control (Kershaw et al. 2018; Ryan 2012. See Box 4.3).

4  IMPLEMENTING AND MANAGING CO-PRODUCTION 

65

Consequently, to achieve the desired outcomes, it is necessary to establish specific professional co-production training and motivational mechanisms—a managerial tool that the literature review indicates has been generally overlooked—and to recognise the importance of encouraging active listening (Sicilia et al. 2016), leadership and facilitation (Tuurnas 2016). A process of learning may be prompted by facilitating the exchange of professional and experiential knowledge among professionals (Tuurnas 2015). Bovaird and Löffler (2012) recognise the “need to develop the professional skills to mainstream co-production”. Co-production calls for the revised training and development of public service professionals. Professionals need to be able to make use of the assets that clients and citizens offer (Tuurnas 2015). Socialisation is also an important tool for professionals. Kershaw et al. (2018) found that professional bodies were able to successfully ‘theorise’ co-production in museums, but unable to diffuse it.

Box 4.3  Co-Production in Australian Museums and the Influence of Professional Bodies

Co-production in museums delivers greater public value, builds new audiences, and creates innovative and accessible programs, However, it is largely resisted by public sector organisations such as museums, particularly when it involves collaboration with communities. Research by Kershaw, Bridson, and Parris (2018) examines the role played by professional bodies in driving or inhibiting co-production. Museum professional bodies are public sector bodies that receive public funding and fill a singular field-level role, acting as intermediaries between museums and broader society. The study found that curators working in close proximity with communities and elected members, or organisations that prioritised community engagement, were able to offer first-hand accounts of coproduction. Curators working in elite arts organisations, contemporary art spaces, and state galleries had less direct experience to draw on, and spoke of conceptual understandings of co-production. Both professional bodies and curators reported that co-­production was an opportunity to challenge hegemonic museum practice, align with government funding priorities, and increase the efficiency and effectiveness of public services. (continued)

66 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Box 4.3  (continued)

Professional bodies reported that ‘museums by and large saw themselves as the experts and communities as the consumers’. Curators noted that co-production challenges a professional’s influence and control, because ‘you take away control so you can’t control the message, you can’t necessarily control the outcome of the work and you are then in this awkward space’. Professional bodies reported that they promoted co-production by acknowledging and profiling those organisations and individuals who co-produce. Museums and curators who co-produced were labelled as innovators and held up as agents of change. However, professional bodies also reported curators’ resistance to the work they did to encourage co-­ production within the sector. Curators were more sceptical of the influence that professional bodies had on the adoption of co-production. They noted the inability of professional bodies to legitimise co-production and (re)institutionalise it as an accepted form of museum practice. This study found that, despite successfully theorising co-­ production, professional bodies were unable to diffuse this practice as a legitimate form of museum practice. One explanation may lie in the gap between rhetoric and change in practice, meaning that co-­ production has not been institutionalised. In conclusion, the study reveals the effect of institutional inertia and the limits to which professional bodies are able to diffuse co-­ production and change established professional practice. Source: with adaptations from Kershaw et al. 2018.

4.2.6  Leadership The co-production literature is extremely quiet on the issue of leadership, neglecting the role of both public and community leaders in co-­production (McLennan 2018). Leadership in co-production is defined as ‘the ability to align different values and interests and to find a common ground’ (Ngo et al. 2019) and is concerned with making professionals aware that their efforts are part of a collective task (Torfing et al. 2019). Different types of leadership have been identified (Bussu and Galanti 2018), highlighting their effect on co-production outcomes such as the

4  IMPLEMENTING AND MANAGING CO-PRODUCTION 

67

width and depth of participation, equity improvement, availability of financial resources, communication, and participation cost reduction (McLennan 2018; Ngo et al. 2019; Vanleene et al. 2017). Capable community leadership can protect community initiatives against the risk that government involvement will ‘kill or mutate’ them (Brandsen and Honingh 2016; McLennan 2018). 4.2.7   Accountability and Performance Management Accountability in co-production is a complex issue and the literature is rather silent on this aspect. First, traditional accountability systems are based on the idea that regular providers are responsible for delivering services and thus should be the main actors held responsible. The advent of co-production has therefore led to the need for new forms of more horizontal accountability to reflect the transfer of power to lay actors and the co-productive activities provided by them in order to appropriately define input and output in the analysis of efficiency (Meijer 2016; De Witte and Geys 2013). Second, accountability systems need to be supported by performance management systems designed to monitor different dimensions, such as input, processes, output, and intermediate and final outcomes (Sorrentino et  al. 2017; Cepiku et  al. 2020). The difficulty of translating outcomes into numeral values, however, can hamper the adoption of a results-driven management system, the understanding of the difference between co-­produced and non-co-produced services, and the transparency of the outcomes achieved.

Box 4.4  Performance Evaluation in a Pilot Neighbourhood Co-Production Project in the City of Tampere, Finland

The project examined was one of the co-production pilots following the strategy of the City of Tampere (2013). The project targeted the creation of innovative solutions for the public service offer in a socially challenging neighbourhood of the City of Tampere, Finland. The neighbourhood project was especially targeted at families with children. Professionals from various fields of service production, such as social work, health care, early education and day care services, youth work and school personnel, took part in the project. (continued)

68 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Box 4.4  (continued)

The three aims of the project can be summed up. –– To make the local public services more effective and user friendly by intensifying co-operation among the public service providers in the neighbourhood. –– To apply co-production and co-design as empowering tools in the development of neighbourhood services. –– To strengthen the sense of community in the neighbourhood by motivating the local residents to participate as volunteers. The question of performance management was frequently discussed in the network meetings. For instance, the professionals discussed the difficulty of measuring the outcomes of the various activities of the project. Being accountable to the politicians and purchasers of the services, however, meant that the achievements needed to become visible in figures and numbers, and the outcomes must be explainable in the project reports. In such a project where the aim was to activate the local residents through co-production, and to increase the sense of community, it proved difficult to demonstrate the outcomes as numeral values, at least in a time span of one or two years. Still, the managerial procedures included reports such as: “Is the evaluation [of the project] something other than the evaluation survey or the citizen survey? Do we have other indicators? […] Could it be that focus is rather not the question, whether the amount of child welfare notifications have decreased etc. […] Isn’t it instead that we have started something new that might eventually lead to that?” Source: with adaptations from Tuurnas 2015.

4  IMPLEMENTING AND MANAGING CO-PRODUCTION 

69

4.3   Concluding Remarks This chapter focused on the management and implementation of co-­ production, providing insights into seven levers that can be used in addressing the many challenges of collaboration between professionals and lay actors. The success of co-production initiatives depends not only on the general context and antecedents, but also on the ability to define suitable institutional arrangements, to adopt effective plans and communication strategies, to manage lay actors and professionals well, and to effectively lead and be accountable. The recent interest in the high complexity and failure rate of co-­ production has paved the way for widespread agreement that the design and implementation of the initiatives affect the quality of collaboration and its outcomes, however, research on co-production management is still novel, especially in the public sector. Some gaps have been identified by comparing the literature on co-­ production management to the more mature theories of collaborative governance. These include especially the topics of co-production planning, leadership and performance measurement (Table 4.1). A final remark is necessary on how to assess the effectiveness of co-­ production management. There are hints in the network management literature, which looks at some intermediary results, which can be put under the umbrella of quality of collaboration. This includes: the quality, intensity and sustainability of interaction; enjoyment of co-production; and lay actors’ affective responses. In conclusion, the literature on public sector co-production management and implementation is growing, although in a fragmented way (i.e., around single tools). Future research must pay particular attention to a systemic view, able to bring together all management tools and, especially, to highlight cause-effect links among these tools, and between management and the outcomes of co-production.

70 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Table 4.1  Synthesis of managerial levers of co-production Main categorisation of co-production management levers

Management challenges addressed

Impact on co-production Key references outcomes

Institutional arrangements (Service delivery channels, formal rules, intensity, size and scope)

A structured participation process ensures: decreased uncertainty and risks; enhanced perceived ability; and more equitable relationships. It minimises communication costs and miscommunication risks Co-production selection rules affect representativeness of lay actors and professionals Rules that allow immediate sanction for failures of reciprocity are important especially when there are low levels of trust

Lay actor learning can be designed into the service delivery system by encouraging the use of channels with complementary learning effects and discouraging channel substitution Co-­production selection rules affect the equity of co-production results Co-production intensity, size and scope negatively affect a lay actor’s self-­ efficacy, loyalty and satisfaction with the co-production process

Planning

Allows regular producers and lay actors to come to a shared understanding of the focus and purpose of co-production activities and to avoid being directed towards divergent or even conflicting ends

Brandsen and Helderman (2012), Cepiku and Giordano (2014), Dong and Sivakumar (2015), Field et al. (2012), Flores and Vasquez-­ Parraga (2015), Haumann et al. (2015), Jakobsen and Andersen (2013), Lierl (2016), Mende et al. (2017), Morton and Paice (2016), Pestoff (2014), Sichtmann et al. (2011), Stokburger-­ Sauer et al. (2016), Warren et al. (1984), Workman (2011) Frieling et al. (2014)

(continued)

4  IMPLEMENTING AND MANAGING CO-PRODUCTION 

71

Table 4.1  (continued) Main categorisation of co-production management levers

Management challenges addressed

Impact on co-production Key references outcomes

Communication strategies

Helps address unresolved epistemic differences across professional and lay actors

Use of ICT helps reduce co-production costs

Clark and Guzman (2017), Clark et al. (2013), Essén et al. (2016), Hsieh and Hsieh (2015), Jakobsen and Andersen 2013, Lember et al. (2019), Meijer (2011, 2012, 2014), Owens and Cribb (2012), Parrado et al. (2013), Shandas and Messer (2008), Sorrentino et al. (2017), Spanjol et al. (2015), von Thiele (2016) (continued)

72 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Table 4.1  (continued) Main categorisation of co-production management levers

Management challenges addressed

Impact on co-production Key references outcomes

Management of lay actors

Effective training gives lay actors the confidence and ability needed to co-produce the new service. It also promotes role clarity

Motivation and socialisation levers affect activeness in participation and more general co-production behaviours. They also affect a lay actor’s satisfaction with the organisation

Management of professionals

Bettencourt et al. (2002), Buttgen et al. (2012), Petukiene et al. (2012), Carey (2013), Essén et al. (2016), Esmark et al. (2016), Fledderus et al. (2015), Ford and Dickson (2012), Frieling et al. (2014), Guo et al. (2013), Pacheco et al. (2013), Parrado et al. (2013), Stevens et al. (2017), van Eijk et al. (2017), van Eijk (2018), Wan et al. (2016) Training and motivation The exchange of Bovaird of professionals address professional and (2007), their lack of skills to experiential knowledge Bovaird and mainstream co-production among professionals Löffler (2012), and their reluctance to improves learning Kershaw et al. share power and control (2018), Ryan with users and (2012), Sicilia communities et al. (2016), Tuurnas (2015, 2016), Verschuere et al. (2012), Williams et al. (2016) (continued)

4  IMPLEMENTING AND MANAGING CO-PRODUCTION 

73

Table 4.1  (continued) Main categorisation of co-production management levers

Management challenges addressed

Impact on co-production Key references outcomes

Leadership

Influences width and depth of participation, equity improvement, availability of financial resources, participation costs

Accountability & performance measurement

Lack of performance measurement and accountability can hamper the understanding of the difference between co-produced and non-co-produced services, and the transparency of the outcomes achieved

Brandsen and Honingh (2016), Bussu and Galanti (2018), McLennan (2018), Ngo et al. (2019), Torfing et al. (2019), Vanleene et al. (2017) De Witte and Geys (2013), Meijer (2016), Sorrentino et al. (2017), Tuurnas (2015)

References Alford, J. 2014. The Multiple Facets of Co-Production: Building on the Work of Elinor Ostrom. Public Management Review 16 (3): 299–316. https://doi. org/10.1080/14719037.2013.806578. Bettencourt, L.A., A.L. Ostrom, S.W. Brown, and R.I. Roundtree. 2002. Client Co-Production in Knowledge-Intensive Business Services. California Management Review 44 (4): 100–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166145. Bovaird, T. 2007. Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Co-Production of Public Services. Public Administration Review 67 (5): 846–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.

74 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Bovaird, T., and E. Löeffler. 2012. From Engagement to Co-Production: The Contribution of Users and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23 (4): 1119–1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6. Brandsen, T., and J.  Helderman. 2012. The Trade-Off Between Capital and Community: The Conditions for Successful Co-Production in Housing. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23 (4): 1139–1155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9310-0. Brandsen, T., and M.  Honingh. 2016. Distinguishing Different Types of Co-Production: A Conceptual Analysis Based on the Classical Definitions. Public Administration Review 76 (3): 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/ puar.12465. Bryson, J.M., B.C. Crosby, and M.M. Stone. 2015. Designing and Implementing Cross-Sector Collaborations: Needed and Challenging. Public Administration Review 75 (5): 647–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12432. Bussu, S., and M.T.  Galanti. 2018. Facilitating Co-Production: The Role of Leadership in Co-Production Initiatives in the UK. Policy and Society 37 (3): 347–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1414355. Buttgen, M., J.H. Schumann, and Z. Ates. 2012. Service Locus of Control and Customer Co-Production: The Role of Prior Service Experience and Organizational Socialization. Journal of Service Research 15 (2): 166–181. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670511435564. Carey, P. 2013. Student as Co-Producer in a Marketised Higher Education System: A Case Study of Students’ Experience of Participation in Curriculum Design. Innovations in Education and Teaching International 50 (3): 250–260. https://doi.org/10.1080/14703297.2013.796714. Cepiku, D. 2017. Collaborative Governance. In Handbook of Global Public Policy and Administration, edited by Thomas R. Klassen, Denita Cepiku and T. J. Lah. Oxon & New York: Routledge. ISBN: 9781138845220. Cepiku, D., and F.  Giordano. 2014. Co-Production in Developing Countries: Insights from the Community Health Workers Experience. Public Management Review 16 (3): 317–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.822535. Cepiku, D., and M.  Mastrodascio. 2019. Leadership Behaviours in Local Government Networks: An Empirical Replication Study. Public Management Review: 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1679233. Cepiku, D., F.  Giordano, M.  Mastrodascio, and W.  Wang. 2020. What Drives Network Effectiveness? A Configurational Approach. Public Management Review: 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1764084. Clark, B.Y., and T.S.  Guzman. 2017. Does Technologically Enabled Citizen Participation Lead to Budget Adjustments? An Investigation of Boston, MA, and San Francisco, CA. The American Review of Public Administration 47 (8): 945–961. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016642568.

4  IMPLEMENTING AND MANAGING CO-PRODUCTION 

75

Clark, B.Y., J.L. Brudney, and S.G. Jang. 2013. Co-Production of Government Services and the New Information Technology: Investigating the Distributional Biases. Public Administration Review 73 (5): 87–701. https://doi. org/10.1111/puar.12092. De Witte, K., and B.  Geys. 2013. Citizen Co-Production and Efficient Public Good Provision: Theory and Evidence from Local Public Libraries. European Journal of Operational Research 224 (3): 592–602. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. ejor.2012.09.002. Dong, B., and K. Sivakumar. 2015. A Process-Output Classification for Customer Participation in Services. Journal of Service Management 26 (5): 726–750. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-01-2015-0005. Echeverri, P., and N. Salomonson. 2017. Bi-Directional and Stratified Demeanour in Value Forming Service Encounter Interactions. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 36: 93–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser. 2017.01.007. Esmark, C.L., S.M.  Noble, J.E.  Bell, and D.A.  Griffith. 2016. The Effects of Behavioral, Cognitive, and Decisional Control in Co-Production Service Experiences. Marketing Letters 27 (3): 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11002-015-9348-z. Essén, A., S.  Winterstorm, and V.K.  Liljedal. 2016. Co-Production in Chronic Care: Exploitation and Empowerment. European Journal of Marketing 50 (5/6): 846–860. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2015-0067. Field, J.M., M. Xue, and L.M. Hitt. 2012. Learning by Customers as Co-Producers in Financial Services: An Empirical Study of the Effects of Learning Channels and Customer Characteristics. Operation Management Research 5: 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-012-0064-z. Fledderus, J., T.  Brandsen, and M.E.  Honingh. 2015. User Co-Production of Public Service Delivery: An Uncertainty Approach. Public Policy and Administration 30 (2): 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/09520 76715572362. Flores, J., and A.Z. Vasquez-Parraga. 2015. The Impact of Choice on Co-Produced Customer Value Creation and Satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Marketing 32 (1): 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-04-2014-0931. Ford R. C., and D. R. Dickinson. 2012. Enhancing Customer Self-efficacy in Co-Producing Service Experiences. Business Horizons 55 (2):179–188. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.11.005. Frieling, M., S. Lindenberg, and F.N. Stokman. 2014. Collaborative Communities Through Co-Production: Two Case Studies. The American Review of Public Administration 44 (1): 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012456897. Grönroos, C. 2011. Value Co-Creation in Service Logic: A Critical Analysis. Marketing Theory 11 (3): 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/14 70593111408177.

76 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Guo, L., E.J. Arnould, T.W. Gruen, and C. Tang. 2013. Socializing to Co-Produce: Pathways to Consumers’ Financial Well-Being. Journal of Service Research 16 (4): 549–563. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670513483904. Haumann, T., P.  Güntürkün, L.M.  Schons, and J.  Wieseke. 2015. Engaging Customers in Co-Production Processes: How Value-Enhancing and Intensity-­ Reducing Communication Strategies Mitigate the Negative Effects of Co-Production Intensity. Journal of Marketing 79: 17–33. https://doi. org/10.1509/jm.14.0357. Hoyer, W.D., R. Chandy, M. Dorotic, M. Krafft, and S.S. Singh. 2010. Consumer Cocreation in New Product Development. Journal of Service Research 13 (3): 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375604. Hsieh, J., and Y.  Hsieh. 2015. Dialogic Co-Creation and Service Innovation Performance in High-Tech Companies. Journal of Business Research 68 (11): 2266–2271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.009. Jakobsen, M., and S.C.  Andersen. 2013. Co-Production and Equity in Public Service Delivery. Public Administration Review 73 (5): 704–713. https://doi. org/10.1111/puar.12094. Järvi, H., A. Kähkönen, and H. Torvinen. 2018. When Value Co-Creation Fails: Reasons That Lead to Value Co-Destruction. Scandinavian Journal of Management 34 (1): 63–77. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scaman.2018.01.002. Kershaw, A., K. Bridson, and M.A. Parris. 2018. The Muse with a Wandering Eye: The Influence of Public Value on Co-Production in Museums. International Journal of Cultural Policy 26 (3): 344–364. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10286632.2018.1518980. Lamph, G., M. Sampson, D. Smith, G. Williamson, and M. Guyers. 2018. Can an Interactive E-Learning Training Package Improve the Understanding of Personality Disorder Within Mental Health Professionals? The Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice 13 (2): 124–134. https:// doi.org/10.1108/JMHTEP-03-2017-0023. Lember, V., T. Brandsen, and P. Tõnurist. 2019. The Potential Impacts of Digital Technologies on Co-Production and Co-Creation. Public Management Review 21 (11): 1665–1686. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619807. Lierl, M. 2016. Social Sanctions and Informal Accountability: Evidence from a Laboratory Experiment. Journal of Theoretical Politics 28 (1): 74–104. https:// doi.org/10.1177/0951629815586885. McLennan, B.J. 2018. Conditions for Effective Co-Production in Community-­ Led Disaster Risk Management. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 31: 316–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11266-018-9957-2. Meijer, A.J. 2011. Networked Co-Production of Public Services in Virtual Communities: From a Government-Centric to a Community Approach to Public Service Support. Public Administration Review 71 (4): 598–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02391.x.

4  IMPLEMENTING AND MANAGING CO-PRODUCTION 

77

Meijer, A. 2012. Co-Production in an Information Age: Individual and Community Engagement Supported by New Media. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23 (4): 1156–1172. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11266-012-9311-z. ———. 2014. New Media and the Co-Production of Safety: An Empirical Analysis of Dutch Practices. American Review of Public Administration 44 (1): 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012455843. ———. 2016. Co-Production as a Structural Transformation of the Public Sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management 29 (6): 596–611. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-01-2016-0001. Mende, M., M.L.  Scott, M.J.  Bitner, and A.L.  Ostrom. 2017. Activating Consumers for Better Service Co-Production Outcomes Through Eustress: The Interplay of Firm-Assigned Workload, Service Literacy, and Organizational Support. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 36 (1): 137–155. https://doi. org/10.1509/jppm.14.099. Morton, M., and E. Paice. 2016. Co-Production at the Strategic Level: Co-Designing an Integrated Care System with Lay Partners in North West. International Journal of Integrated Care 16 (2): 2. https://doi.org/10.5334/ijic.2470. Ngo, H.V., J.  Edelenbos, and A.  Gianoli. 2019. Community Participation and Local Government Capacity in Vietnam: Conditions for Co-Production. Public Administration and Development 39 (2): 104–118. https://doi. org/10.1002/pad.1844. Owens, J., and A.  Cribb. 2012. Conflict in Medical Co-Production: Can a Stratified Conception of Health Help? Health Care Analysis 20 (3): 268–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-011-0186-8. Pacheco, N.A., R.  Lunardo, and C.  Pizzutti dos Santos. 2013. A Perceived-­ Control Based Model to Understanding the Effects of Co-Production on Satisfaction. Brazilian Administration Review 10 (2): 219–238. https://doi. org/10.1590/S1807-76922013000200007. Parrado, S., G.G.  Van Ryzin, T.  Bovaird, and E.  Löffler. 2013. Correlates of Co-Production: Evidence from a Five-Nation Survey of Citizens. International Public Management Journal 16 (1): 85–112. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10967494.2013.796260. Pestoff, V. 2014. Collective Action and the Sustainability of Co-Production. Public Management Review 16 (3): 383–401. https://doi.org/10.108 0/14719037.2013.841460. Petukiene, E., T.  Rigita, and M.  Damkuviene. 2012. Participation of Clients in Public Services: The Aspect of Motivating. Inzinerine Ekonomika-Engineering Economics 23 (3): 301–309. https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ss.73.3.788. Rosenbloom, D.H., and T.  Gong. 2013. Coproducing “Clean” Collaborative Governance: Examples from the United States and China. Public Performance & Management Review 36 (4): 544–561. https://doi.org/10.2753/ PMR1530-9576360403.

78 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Ryan, B. 2012. Co-Production: Option or Obligation? Australian Journal of Public Administration 71 (3): 314–324. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.14678500.2012.00780.x. Shandas, V., and W.B.  Messer. 2008. Fostering Green Communities Through Civic Engagement: Community-Based Environmental Stewardship in the Portland. Journal of the American Planning Association 74 (4): 408–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360802291265. Sichtmann, C., M. von Selasinsky, and A. Diamantopoulos. 2011. Service Quality and Export Performance of Business-to-Business Service Providers: The Role of Service Employee- and Customer-Oriented Quality Control Initiatives. Journal of International Marketing 19 (1): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1509/ jimk.19.1.1. Sicilia, M., E.  Guarini, A.  Sancino, M.  Andreani, and R.  Ruffini. 2016. Public Services Management and Co-Production in Multi-Level Governance Settings. International Review of Administrative Sciences 82 (1): 8–27. https://doi. org/10.1177/0020852314566008. Sorrentino, M., C.  Guglielmetti, S.  Gilardi, and M.  Marsilio. 2017. Healthcare Services and the Co-Production Puzzle: Filling in the Blanks. Administration and Society 49 (10): 1424–1449. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095 399715593317. Spanjol, J., A.S.  Cui, C.  Nakata, L.K.  Sharp, S.Y.  Crawford, Y.  Xiao, and M.B.  Watson-Manheim. 2015. Co-Production of Prolonged, Complex, and Negative Services: An Examination of Medication Adherence in Chronically Ill Individuals. Journal of Service Research 18 (3): 284–302. https://doi. org/10.1177/1094670515583824. Stevens, J., C.L. Esmark, S.M. Noble, and N.Y. Lee. 2017. Co-Producing with Consumers: How Varying Levels of Control and Co-Production Impact Affect. Marketing Letters 28 (2): 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11002-016-9413-2. Stokburger-Sauer, N.E., U. Scholl-Grissemann, K. Teichmann, and M. Wetzels. 2016. Value Cocreation at Its Peak: The Asymmetric Relationship Between Coproduc-tion and Loyalty. Journal of Service Management 27 (4): 563–590. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-10-2015-0305. Thomsen, M.K., and M. Jakobsen. 2015. Influencing Citizen Co-Production by Sending Encouragement and Advice: A Field Experiment International. Public Management Journal 18 (2): 286–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/1096749 4.2014.996628. Torfing, J., E. Sørensen, and A. Røiseland. 2019. Transforming the Public Sector In-to an Arena for Co-Creation: Barriers, Drivers, Benefits, and Ways Forward. Administration and Society 51 (5): 795–825. https://doi. org/10.1177/0095399716680057.

4  IMPLEMENTING AND MANAGING CO-PRODUCTION 

79

Tuurnas, S. 2015. Learning to Co-Produce? The Perspective of Public Service Professionals. International Journal of Public Sector Management 28 (7): 583–598. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-04-2015-0073. ———. 2016. Looking Beyond the Simplistic Ideals of Participatory Projects: Fostering Effective Co-Production? International Journal of Public Administration 39 (13): 1077–1087. https://doi.org/10.1080/0190069 2.2016.1178284. Van Eijk, C. 2018. Helping Dutch Neighborhood Watch Schemes to Survive the Rainy Season: Studying Mutual Perceptions on Citizens’ and Professionals’ Engagement in the Co-Production of Community Safety. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 29 (1): 222–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9918-1. Van Eijk, C., T. Steen, and B. Verschuere. 2017. Co-Producing Safety in the Local Community: A Q-Methodology Study on the Incentives of Belgian and Dutch Members of Neighbourhood Watch Schemes. Local Government Studies 43 (3): 323–343. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930.2017.1281803. Vanleene, D., J.  Voets, and B.  Verschuere. 2017. Co-Producing a Nicer Neighbourhood: Why Do People Participate in Local Community Development Projects? Lex Localis-Journal of Local Self-Government 15 (1): 111–132. https://doi.org/10.4335/15.1.111-132. Verschuere, B., T. Brandsen, and V. Pestoff. 2012. Co-Production: The State of the Art in Research and the Future Agenda. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23: 1083–1101. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8. Von Thiele Schwarz, U. 2016. Co-Care: Producing Better Health Outcome Through Interactions Between Patients, Care Providers and Information and Communication Technology. Health Services Management Research 29 (1–2): 10–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0951484816637746. Wan, E.W., K.W. Chan, and R.P. Chen. 2016. Hurting or Helping? The Effect of Service Agents’ Workplace Ostracism on Customer Service Perceptions. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 44 (6): 746–769. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11747-015-0466-1. Warren, R., M.S.  Rosentraub, and K.S.  Harlow. 1984. Co-Production, Equity, and the Distribution of Safety. Urban Affairs Quarterly 19 (4): 447–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/004208168401900404. Williams, B.N., S. Kang, and J. Johnson. 2016. (Co)-Contamination as the Dark Side of Co-Production: Public Value Failures in Co-Production Processes. Public Management Review 18 (5): 692–717. https://doi.org/10.108 0/14719037.2015.1111660. Workman, A. 2011. Makeni City Council and the Politics of Co-Production in Post-Conflict Sierra Leone. IDS Bulletin 42 (2): 53–63. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1759-5436.2011.00211.x.

CHAPTER 5

Co-production Evaluation

Abstract  This chapter focuses on the different outcomes that coproduction can generate for three different actors: the lay actors, the regular service provider, and the community at large. The key factors that influence the behaviour of lay actors and their satisfaction with the coproduction process and outcomes are discussed. Additional lay actor outcomes are empowerment, awareness, learning, cost, and externalities. The chapter shows how, unlike in the private sector, the public-sector research offers little empirical evidence on the coproduction outcome for the regular provider. The literature identifies coproduction as a means to increase cost efficiency, service effectiveness, effects on workforce productivity, uncertainty, and trust. Finally, the chapter will detail the outcome evaluation for the community, or the collective citizenry, and on public value. Keywords  Outcome • Performance • Evaluation • Impact • Measurement

5.1   Introduction This chapter presents and discusses the third pillar of the framework. Moving from the results of the literature, it focuses on the different outcomes that co-production can generate. The analysis of the literature demonstrates that co-production can generate different outcomes for each of

© The Author(s) 2020 D. Cepiku et al., The Co-production of Public Services, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60710-4_5

81

82 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

the actors involved. Specifically, outcomes have been classified according the different actors affected by co-production: the lay actors, the regular service providers, and the community at large. This chapter is structured as follows. Section 5.2 discusses the main outcome identified with specific reference to lay actors, such as satisfaction (with the process and with the service), empowerment, awareness, learning, cost, and externalities. Section 5.3 reports on the outcomes of regular providers: cost efficiency (including workforce savings, training and assistance cost, operational and transitional cost, investment costs), service effectiveness, impacts on workforce productivity, uncertainty, and trust. Outcomes at community level are presented in Sect. 5.4 with regard to value generated for the community (in term of social capital), for society (whose main dimensions are the democratisation of public service, equity in distributional consequences, legitimacy, and acceptance) and the social economic impact. Section 5.5 discusses the growing literature on the dark side of co-production, which is about adopting appropriate strategies and tools for its activation and operation management in order to avoid value de-construction for lay actors, regular providers and community. Finally, the chapter synoptically systematises the literature discussed and draws some final conclusions and suggests further research avenues.

5.2   Lay Actor Co-production Outcomes Many scholars claim that co-production can significantly positively impact participants. When users/customers are actively engaged in the production process, the output should become more closely aligned with their interests and needs (Golder et  al. 2012; Hoyer et  al. 2010), improving their evaluation of the resulting product or service (Cheung and To 2011) and increasing the likelihood of building and maintaining long-term relationships with their service provider (Chen and Chen 2017). The same is true for public service, where the active involvement of citizens in the service delivery process may change their subjective perceptions of quality (Loeffler and Bovaird 2018). Nonetheless, the perspectives of lay actors have been revealed in the literature on co-production impacts to be less investigated than those of the regular providers (Esmark et al. 2016), specifically in the public sector, where “the actual and potential impact of co-production on citizen outcomes is as yet only sketchily researched” (Bovaird and Loeffler 2016, 1013). The main dimensions of lay actor outcomes are identified and discussed as follows.

5  CO-PRODUCTION EVALUATION 

83

5.2.1  Satisfaction Satisfaction is one the most commonly considered lay actor outcome s in both public- and private-sector studies. Specifically, co-production effects on lay actors are expected to include satisfaction: (i) with the process of co-production, and (ii) with the service co-produced. The literature focuses on identifying the key factors that can either positively or negatively influence the satisfaction of lay actors within the co-production process and affect users’ subjective perceptions of service quality; those drivers have to be identified and possibly managed by regular providers, as anticipated in Chap. 4. The way in which the process of co-production is designed affects customer experiences, influencing people’s enjoyment and satisfaction with the interaction. The effect of process participation on customer satisfaction can vary according different items. The potential psychological response of lay actors to participation has to be taken into consideration when designing the co-production process. Studies have widely investigated the role of self-serving bias related to co-­production outcomes. When a customer takes an active role in the production process, they are subject to self-serving that is “a person’s tendency to claim more responsibility than a partner for success and less responsibility for failure in a situation in which an outcome is produced jointly” (Wolosin et  al. 1973, in (Bendapudi and Leone 2003), 13). Bendapudi and Leone (2003) demonstrated that a customer is far more likely to attribute successful co-produced outcomes to their input, while unsuccessful outcomes are tracked back to other actors or the context. In the public sector, one of the few empirical studies investigating user outcome, found that self-serving bias is a possible explanation of the negative results for satisfaction and trust in some of the cases analysed (Fledderus 2015a). When designing a participation strategy, a service provider therefore has to identify those specific drivers enabling a reduction of this bias or an incentive for lay actors to assume both credit and blame when co-producing. The bulk of research focuses on how the design of differing types and levels of customer control into co-production participation can affect consumer outcome satisfaction. According to the seminal work of Averill (1973), three main different types of control are considered in the co-production literature as satisfaction mediators: behavioural control (i.e., a consumer’s perception of what they can do to influence the situation or event, exemplified by control over procedure), cognitive control (i.e., a consumer’s interpretation of the

84 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

situation, which is exemplified when consumers obtain information) and decisional control (i.e., whether a customer decides to enter a situation or has perceived alternatives). Bendapudi and Leone (2003) show the effect of self-serving bias can be mitigated when the customer can freely choose whether to participate in production (i.e., decisional control), especially when the outcome is worse than expected. Flores and Vasquez-Parraga (2015) empirically corroborated the idea that offering customers a choice when considering whether or not to engage in co-production (high decisional control) positively influences customer value creation and satisfaction. The level of expertise necessary to co-produce a product or service can also affect a customer’s responses to co-production. A service user who believes they have the expertise and chooses to co-produce may be more likely to attribute success and failure to their own efforts, rather than to the service provider, whereas a service user lacking expertise but feeling forced to co-produce may be more negative about the effects of co-­ production on service quality (Bendapudi and Leone 2003, 26). Further studies investigate the three-way interaction between cognitive, behavioural, and decisional control as regards lay actor affective responses. One additional control type (behavioural or cognitive) in the operational process can compensate for low decisional control (Esmark et al. 2016). Even the level of operational co-production can mediate different types of control (Stevens et al. 2017; Pacheco et al. 2013). When co-­production is low, increasing cognitive control will increase affect, while the impact of behavioural control can negatively or positively vary depending on specific situational contexts and the perceptions of service customisation (Stevens et al. 2017). A customer’s perceived control prompts their satisfaction, with stronger mediation for those services that involve higher risks (e.g., higher financial and psychological costs to set-up co-production, Pacheco et al. 2013). Finally, increasing customers’ perceived socialisation (developing mechanisms in order to ensure development of customer skills and knowledge to accomplish service production and delivery) and perceived support (enforcing customer beliefs that their input and contributions matter and are valued by the firm) positively impact customer satisfaction (Wu 2011). The level of perceived co-production intensity (i.e., nonmonetary customer input, such as perceived effort and time invested) can negatively affect customer satisfaction with the co-production process (Wu 2017), diminishing a customer’s perceived equity in the exchange (Etgar 2008).

5  CO-PRODUCTION EVALUATION 

85

It has also been empirically demonstrated that the relationship between co-production efforts and lay actors satisfaction is not positively linear (Stokburger-Sauer et al. 2016). Analysing the relationship between level of co-production and customer loyalty (assumed as a proxy of customer satisfaction and an indirect proxy of provider benefit), scholars found that after an optimum level (where both customers and companies benefit) the marginal benefit of co-production for customer loyalty turns negative. Neither exceeding nor underperforming co-production activities pay off, since they decrease value co-creation (as the sum of lay actor and regular provider value). A lay actor’s perceived process enjoyment can mitigate a negative effect, while self-efficacy can increase the optimum level of co-­ production. Not perfectly combining increasing levels of co-production with increasing levels of customer participation readiness can thus lead to customer dissatisfaction (Zolfagharian et al. 2018). Intensity drawbacks can be mitigated through ad hoc communications strategies: the “value-enhancing communication strategies”, aiming to either enhance customer perceptions of co-production value or decrease customers’ perceived intensity of the co-production process and the “intensity-reducing communication strategies”, demonstrating that immediate support is available when customers experience difficulties within the co-production process (Haumann et al. 2015). Customers find higher workloads to be a positive and meaningful challenge (the co-production eustress experience), thus mitigating the impact on outcomes, when organisational support triggers customer beliefs that they collaborate with the provider to achieve a shared goal (Mende et al. 2017). This is also true in the public domain; to increase user satisfaction, even when service fails, a service provider has to emphasise the mutual character of co-production, remarking on the regular producer’s efforts to improve the quality of service, together with the users and making it visible during the entire process of co-production (Fledderus 2015b). The type of output and level of service co-produced can affect satisfaction. Xu et al. (2018) confirms that the (high/low) quality of co-produced outcomes strongly amplifies customers perceived (positive/negative) effects. In case of ambiguous or negative outcome quality, self-integration (i.e., the perceived link between self and outcome) positively mediates effect on outcome evaluation (Troye and Supphellen 2012), especially in cases of individual co-production, rather than a collective co-produced service (Xu et al. 2018). This self-blame effect can be explained with the internal or external attribution of the causal locus (i.e., the extent to which one perceives the cause of a failure to be located inside or outside oneself).

86 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

When service fails to reach the expected outcome, co-producers blame themselves more than non-co-producers, when associated with a lay actor’s internal attribution of the causal locus (Pacheco et al. 2017). Different features of service output (whether the activities performed by the lay actor result in generic or specific output) can affect satisfaction with co-production, acting at the same time in the opposite direction for regular provider efficiency. A positive effect of co-production magnitude on satisfaction is liked to specific output; at the same time specific output intensifies the negative effect of co-production magnitude on efficiency. Conversely, generic output may diminish the positive effect of co-­ production magnitude on satisfaction, but mitigate the negative effect of co-production magnitude on efficiency (Dong and Sivakumar 2015). Evidence suggests that a regular provider can balance these competing goals, defining and structuring the lay actor’s participation process (i.e., process structure), and decreasing the level of uncertainty, heterogeneity and risks associate with co-production. Dong et al. (2008) investigated how the involvement of lay actors in the service recovery process affects customer satisfaction and intention to continue as a co-creator. Using role-playing experiments in self-service technology context, Dong et al. (2008) found a positive effect on lay actor co-producing service recovery during service failures in a co-production process. Specifically, when co-creating service recovery, lay actors report greater perceived satisfaction with the service and an increase in co-­ production specialised skills and knowledge and role clarity, thus enhancing their likelihood to co-create in the future. Social network service-based interaction can affect customer satisfaction. While the perceived relational value (that related to customer-­ provider relationship) positively effects customer satisfaction, the social-interaction value (that related to customer-customer relationship) has a negative effect on customer satisfaction; this evidence is primarily found superficially in social services, in which consumer choice is restricted (Park et al. 2018). An empirical study shows that the types of co-production in public service (i.e., economic, social or political, Pestoff 2012) do not directly positively affect client satisfaction in public service; what affects lay user satisfaction are specific co-production lay actors’ “mediators” (i.e., level of information, perceived structural quality, and perceived person-­organisation fit), regardless of the core co-production typology (Lindenmeier et al. 2019).

5  CO-PRODUCTION EVALUATION 

87

5.2.2  Empowerment Although widely empirically examined as antecedents related to lay actors, few studies provide evidence on self-efficacy (defined as an individual’s belief in their ability to perform a task) or related constructs (such as empowerment, self-esteem) as a specific outcome of co-production. Recently, in the public management literature, a large randomised and controlled research project dealing with collective co-production in healthcare, found statistically significant perceived empowerment gains, measured via the patient activation measure (PAM), which has been used to measure people’s sense of empowerment in managing their own health (Jo and Nabatchi 2019). Self-efficacy/empowerment can be affected by co-production design (Cepiku and Giordano 2014; Ford and Dickson 2012). Specifically, experienced empowerment increases when a lay actor is support by an appropriate tool for enforcing the understanding of task and responsibilities (Füller et al. 2009). Looking at co-production in chronic care, Essén et al. (2016) claim that (i) setting clear and shared goals with the lay actor, and (ii) training lay actors, are the two imperatives for minimising the risk of disempowerment and exploitation experiences for lay actors. Such practices have to be maintained during the entire co-production process, in order to ensure empowerment suitability over time (Sorrentino et  al. 2017; Frieling et al. 2014). Finally, when the co-production process is successfully “empowering”, apart from the empowerment itself, it can enhance other kinds of outcomes for the lay actor. Case studies from health and social services show that increasing patient empowerment in co-produced service leads to increased individual overall satisfaction with the health treatments received, as well as better subjective health status (Trummer et al. 2006), and can finally act as a fundamental driver of improving service delivery (Sicilia et  al. 2016) and to reduce the risks of overall value co-destruction (Palumbo and Manna 2018). 5.2.3  Awareness Co-production also results in increasing participants’ levels of issue awareness, and is particularly true in the context of collective co-production. Taking part of the process, individuals obtain information about the issue, develop an understanding of its importance, and offer and refine their views based on input from other participants, which in turn has educative effects, particularly in terms of issue awareness (Jo and Nabatchi 2019, 4).

88 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

5.2.4  Learning The increased learning rate of lay actors is an important co-production outcome, enabling customers to become more efficient co-producers. Evidence comes only from the literature in the private sector. Research into home-banking services reveals that a higher learning rate is not only linked to customer characteristics (such as absorptive capacity), but can be pursued by designing a service process that discourages channel substitution (e.g., the online vs traditional service) and fosters the use of complementary learning channels (internal and peer-to peer) (Field et al. 2012). The motivation for customers to learn about and use a new service delivery channel that enables co-production may be reduced if they continue to have access to existing channels, because they may not feel compelled to make the effort to learn a new system or produce a service independently; thus, access to other traditional transactional delivery channels will have a negative effect on the customer co-producer learning rate. Access to, and use of, a peer-to-peer learning channel has a positive effect on the customer co-producer learning rate. This could also be tested in the public sector, where technology-driven co-production is steadily increasing, as discussed below. 5.2.5  Lay Actor Costs While reviewing and systematising the scholarly interest in different kinds of co-production benefits/positive impact, this chapter demonstrates how the costs for lay actors have been ignored. Loeffler and Bovaird (2018) distinguish six categories of costs related to different aspects of lay actor participation in co-production (costs of learning about co-production opportunities, costs for training activities, costs related to managing operations, costs for monetary donating, costs related to social and psychological changes in their lifestyle). Empirical evidence is very scant. In their the recent study Thomsen et al. (2020) investigated, through two randomised vignette experiments, the psychological cost of citizen co-production, considering ‘citizens’ as a broad umbrella term to distinguish non-state actors (including lay actors) from government and public employees. Psychological costs (such as experiences of stigma, stress, and loss of autonomy) are more likely to affect citizens: (i) when they are encouraged to co-produce public services resulting in private benefits for relatives or friends in contrast to collective benefits for a larger group of people, and (ii) when they are characterised by low self-efficacy. Unfortunately, much

5  CO-PRODUCTION EVALUATION 

89

citizen participation in co-production involves assisting someone to whom the citizen is personally and emotionally attached (e.g., elderly care, preschool, compulsory education, and care for disabled individuals). Nonetheless, the study shows that the negative effect on psychological cost associated with these practices may be mitigated by increasing citizens’ self-efficacy, providing them with information on how to participate in co-production or sending them information showing that people similar to themselves succeed in producing the same task. Future empirical research is needed to provide valuable evidence on the potential disadvantages for lay actors, in order to adopt the proper co-­ production management levers to reduce the burden and stimulate citizen participation in co-production. 5.2.6  Externalities Bovaird et al. (2015) encourage scholars to also evaluate the externalities of consumption, that is, the impact of co-production on those indirectly affected by the consumption of public goods, such as those close to the lay actor who benefits from the improved outcomes (caregivers, volunteers, etc.), other users who learned how to make better use of the service from the example set by the co-producers (e.g., expert patients) and other citizens who need or will need to use the service in the future (‘option demand’) and are reassured to see how effective it can be. These externalities in consumption are likely to be higher in collective than in individual co-production, as there is more interaction between the co-producers involved and other citizens.

5.3   Regular Service Provider Co-production Outcomes Co-production is also expected to promote significant potential benefits for the regular provider. The first attempts to evaluate co-production outcomes for the regular provider can be traced back to Brudney’s works (1983, 1984) in the early 1980s public-sector. He distinguished two main broad impact categories: (i) productivity gains through increased efficiency (mainly cost efficiency); and (ii) improved effectiveness. Research in the private service widely recognises these as the two most significant sources of competitive advantage reachable through co-production (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2000, 2004).

90 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

5.3.1  Cost Efficiency Cost efficiency is related to the unit costs of service production and to its productivity, measured as the relationship between costs of input (personnel, equipment, etc.) and the related output (the amount of service and its quality). Co-production changes the composition of input to process, including lay actor input as part of the service provision. Co-production can thus positively affect cost efficiency and productivity if it achieves cost reduction or raises the quantity and/or quality of service produced. Cost savings could mainly derive from replacing the work of the professionals with the unpaid input and efforts of the lay actors. In the public sector, providers may economise on their internal resources thanks to citizen input (Andrews et al. 2014, 30). The citizen’s additional efforts may free public service agents to pursue other functions, increasing overall service productivity and raising the allocative efficiency of service delivery, co-produced services being better tailored to citizen needs (Thomas 2015). Actually, citizen contributions are not costless. It must be noted, however, that replacing professionals with volunteers means that some of the costs are not actually eliminated but shifted to the lay actors (Pestoff 2006). Time and resources should be assessed as opportunity costs, evaluating the “shadow” wages earned (which could be a reduction in service cost or tax reduction). There may be an inappropriate or undesired offloading of cost, risk and responsibility from the government to citizens (McLennan 2018). The private sector makes the same claim; when customers become partial employees, they should perceive the value they gain from co-production to be at least commensurate with the effort made in their co-producer role (Hilton 2008). Studies identify other lay actors-led cost savings that can be achieved when co-production specifically deals with the design or launch of a new service/product. For example, when a provider co-produces a new product or service development, a user’s input can decrease the cost of acquiring consumer ideas and needs; reduce the risk of product failure; lower marketing costs, thanks to the increase in user enthusiasm and word-of-­ mouth and easier monitoring of user emotions; and increase continuous product improvements and the exploration of additional usages (e.g., through expert users involved in the delivery process) (Hoyer et al. 2010). The potentially high magnitude of organisational outcomes of co-­ production applied to service design and planning phases has also been demonstrated in the public services process; the co-design of core tasks in the service has improved service efficiency (Zambrano-gutiérrez et  al.

5  CO-PRODUCTION EVALUATION 

91

2017) and citizen participation in the early stages of planning helped to save time and speed up implementation (Frieling et al. 2014). On the other hand, the regular provider sustains more direct and tangible costs that are associated with the co-production process. The provider needs to increase front-line and staff input, in order to (i) train staff on how to work with lay actors as co-producers, and (ii) guiding and offering ongoing assistance to co-producers, who need to be encouraged to contribute their time and efforts. Evidence shows that this is particularly true where co-production reduces staff-led services within operating sites (e.g., through self-service technologies); employees will need to train and support customers in order to ensure a successful service provision and also to act in in new roles associated with “self-service recovery” (Hilton 2013). The managerial effort to set the specific tools and methods of lay actor engagement to design and implement service delivery can significantly increase operational costs (Thomas 2015, 99–100) and transactional costs (Loeffler and Bovaird 2016). These costs are firstly related to the creation of a management framework to steer and sustain lay actors in the co-­ production process over time: managing staff competence, clear allocation of responsibilities and risks, setting accountability management system, and so on. Sorrentino et al. (2017). In the public sector, a limited steering capacity perceived by citizens, and labelled ‘perception of chaos’, (Bartenberger and Szescilo 2016) risks compromising the expected benefits, and increasing the “political” costs of co-production (Bartenberger and Szescilo 2016). Other costs may be related to specific co-production investments and infrastructure to allow lay actors to deploy their contributions (Andrews and Erickson 2012; Hilton 2008) Among these investments, ICTs are expected to enable more forms of co-production, changing the way lay actors are engaged with and provide input for services (thanks to assistive technologies, online platforms and other social networking) (Mcloughlin et  al. 2009). This is particularly relevant in the public sector (Linders 2012; Lember 2018). On the other hand, ICT is also considered one of the major contributions of co-production to cost reduction, expediting rapid and low-cost interactions between service users and providers and among service users themselves (Loeffler and Bovaird 2016). This benefit can be reached when co-production mediated by technology is not merely perceived as a task-performance issue, but also as a value-attributing task in the consumer service experience (Hilton 2008; Meijer 2014).

92 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

There is still little systematic evidence in the public sector literature on how digital technologies affect co-production and co-creation in practice, and that available shows that the impact of technologies is not straightforward (Lember 2018). Some scholars are sceptical about the assumed positive feedback-effect of technology-led co-production on the provider’s efficiency or performance management capacity (Clark and Guzman 2017). The potential impacts of digital technologies could depend on how they interact with co-production, enabling it, diversifying its practices or substituting for it (Lember et al. 2019). 5.3.2  Effectiveness The other main co-production outcome dimension is effectiveness, the capacity of an alternative service delivery arrangement to achieve an increase in service quality. The potential of co-production to increase public service quality has been widely reported (Bovaird and Loeffler 2012, 36). The closer fit and greater responsiveness to user needs achieved through co-production can drive important service improvements (Radnor et al. 2014). Co-production is also a powerful tool with which to bond a product/ service and the consumer, which is particularly relevant when the participation of users is critical for guaranteeing the achievement of goals (Troye and Supphellen 2012). This is particularly true in knowledge intensive sectors (Bettencourt et  al. 2002; Mustak 2019), where client contributions to the service delivery process are integral to service success, affecting the quality of the service outcome; there are many examples from health cases (Palumbo et al. 2018). A higher service quality can ultimately affect a lay actor’s satisfaction (i.e., subjective perception of quality) with the service provided, as discussed above. User involvement can also mitigate potential negative reactions in the event of a provider’s service failures (Koc et al. 2017). Private-sector research has attempted to assign a monetary value to service quality as perceived by users; evidence suggests that co-produced products lead to higher prices (measured through willingness to pay), as the quality and value perceived by users is affected by self-extension, the feeling that the product is part of people (Walasek et al. 2017). Whether the public service users are willing to pay more for a product/service that they themselves co-produce (through higher taxation or service fees) is an aspect that remains unexplored.

5  CO-PRODUCTION EVALUATION 

93

Co-production can also nurture service effectiveness, enhancing organisational adaptability and flexibility (Boyle and Harris 2009), and advancing innovation (Hsieh and Hsieh 2015; Osborne et al. 2015). 5.3.3  Impact on Workforce Studies on co-production mainly focus on the customer perspective rather than that of the employee, and there is little evidence is available to understand how co-production affects outcomes for the regular provider’s workforce (i.e., productivity and satisfaction) (Tuurnas 2015, 2016). Wu (2017) is one of the few empirical studies on this issue. The author identifies two main ways in which service employees perform emotional labour: ‘surface acting’ and ‘deep acting’. ‘Surface acting’ “involves service employees complying with organisational rules to modify their displayed emotions without changing their felt emotions”; while ‘deep acting’ is an action to “modify their felt emotions in order to manage their displayed emotions and to match organisational rules” (Wu 2017, 2–3). Evidence shows that employee satisfaction can be increased when coproducing, through deep acting and a decrease in the use of surface acting (Wu 2017). This is explained by the fact that service employees who use deep acting are responsible in their jobs and understand customer needs. By contrast, surface acting is considered as a hindering behaviour because it creates depersonalisation, job dissatisfaction, and distance from customers. 5.3.4  Uncertainty Fledderus and colleagues discuss how, by giving users more say in the service outcome, users’ participation as co-producers increases uncertainty for public providers; in order to minimise such uncertainty, public service provision might lead to a reduction of possibilities for users to co-produce (Fledderus et al. 2014a). While co-production may cause greater uncertainty, it is an important driver with which to moderate or even offset the negative effects of environmental turbulence on organisational performance (van den Bekerom et al. 2016), especially when users play an active role in the design and implementation of the core (rather than peripheral) tasks of the services (Zambrano-gutiérrez et al. 2017).

94 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

5.3.5  Trust Trust is an issue that challenges both sides of co-production. Trust as the activator of lay actor propensity to co-produce was investigated in Chap. 3. Here the focus is on the trust that accrues to the public service provider, and government in general, as an effect of the implementation of co-­ production. While theoretical works suggest that the co-production of public services may generate greater trust (Fledderus et al. 2014b), empirical studies provide divergent results. The empirical study by Fledderus (2015b) indicates that the co-­ production of public service delivery does not necessarily lead to the expected increase in trust in service delivery, trust in (local) government or generalised trust. Management co-production issues, and specifically ways to settle interactions with other users, seem to be crucial for the building of public trust. Co-production has been recently confirmed as having little or no causal effect on trust, regardless of citizens’ awareness of voluntary or non-voluntary forms of co-production (Kang and Van Ryzin 2019).

5.4   Co-production Outcomes for the Community To ascertain whether a co-produced service has achieved the desired benefits, it is finally necessary to evaluate the outcome for the wider community, or the collective citizenry (Bovaird et  al. 2015; Alford and Yates 2016; Nabatchi et al. 2017). Defining collective citizenry is a challenging task; we use the term “loosely” to describe the population of a local area in which co-production activities are at play. In general, assuming a collective-­ level perspective means understanding the benefits of co-­ production for the entire population of a local area, independently of their direct involvement in any collective or individual co-productive activities. Although the collective-level perspective may be seen as more germane to collective co-production, benefits may also be generated for the collective citizenry in individual modes of co-production (Nabatchi et  al. 2017; Alford and Yates 2016; Brudney and England 1983; Bovaird et al. 2015). Assessing and measuring the impact of co-production at the community level is particularly difficult because collective outcomes are usually less tangible to citizens and often harder to link causally to co-produced activities (Bovaird 2012).

5  CO-PRODUCTION EVALUATION 

95

Moore (1995, 47) suggests that ‘public value’ can be conceptualised ‘partly in terms of the satisfaction of individuals who [enjoy desirable outcomes], … and partly in terms of the satisfactions of citizens who have seen a collective need, fashioned a public response to that need, and thereby participated in the construction of a community …’. Moving from this frame, Bovaird and Loeffer (2012) suggest that ‘value-added’ co-­ production in the public sector typically has individual and community dimensions; the latter are: social value (social cohesion or support for social interaction), environmental value (sustainability of policies), and political value (support the democratic process). Taking these classifications further, Dudau et al. (2019) argue that the locus of values that do not accrue to the individual recipient of the service or to the service provider can be synthesised as ‘value to community’ (including social value) and ‘value to society’ (including both political and environmental value). Social economic impact is considered a third dimension. 5.4.1  Value to Community The value to community is first related to development of social capital (Levine and Fisher 1984; Marks and Lawson 2005; Osborne et al. 2016) that can take place through different channels. Co-production may help citizens better understand service costs and government procedures and constraints, and, in doing so, abate the inherent distrust of citizens in regular services providers (Sudhipongpracha and Wongpredee 2016). Co-production, especially when it implies the collective actions and interaction of individuals, may help develop new social bonds and revitalise a communitarian spirit and a vision of what the community should become and act in the future (Cutcher 2010). Some authors note trade-offs when comparing community and user-led co-production. If the first can be more effective in increasing social capital, it could be more challenging from the regular service provider perspective, at least in the short term, requiring an additional investment in terms of different resources (human, financial, time, facilities) to build connections and trust between citizens themselves and also between citizens and service provider, to undertake effective co-production in groups (Loeffler and Bovaird 2018. 271). Value for society can be generated from both individual and collective co-production (Nabatchi et al. 2017). It may be positive, when the collectivity receives benefits, but also negative, when the collective is subject

96 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

to negative impacts. An example of individual co-production generating a positive impact on collectivity is when a teacher (the state actor) and a student (the lay actor) work together to develop a personal learning plan. In this situation the student will not only be more satisfied with tailored learning but the collective citizenry may also increase their degree of appreciation of public services in the long term by enjoying better-­ educated and more employable adults (Zambrano-gutiérrez et al. 2017). Bartenberger and SzeÅšciÅo (2016) provide an example of collective co-­ production which shows that the involvement of citizens in a decision about urban governance generated an improvement of service quality in terms of a reduction in air pollution and car traffic that can be experienced by all groups of people. Annala, Sarin and Green (2018) present an example of a negative impact, which shows that innovation generated by co-­ production while favouring a section of the society appears to have negative effects on public health and the environment. 5.4.2  Value to Society Three different outcomes can be ascribed as having societal value. The first regards the extent to which co-production contributes to the democratisation of public services through direct participation. The democratisation of public services occurs through the involvement of citizens in any phase of the service cycle (Bartenberger and Szescilo 2016; Pestoff 2009) Brudney (1983, 1984), however, co-production does not operate through formal democratic channels and so may pose a threat to, rather than complementing, representative democracy (Loeffler and Bovaird 2016). The second outcome involves the equity in distributional consequences of co-production. The risk of inequality in the distribution or allocation of benefits has often been suggested, arising from the fact that some citizens are willing to co-produce whereas others may not (Brudney 1983; Grabosky 1992; Jakobsen and Andersen 2013; Meijer 2016; O’Brien et al. 2017; Akaateba et al. 2018). It is thus important to evaluate at the collective citizenry level whether a co-production initiative reaches the intended goal of increasing democracy. Barbera et  al. (2016) consider responsiveness and representation necessary for avoiding the prevalence of specific interests. Vanleene et  al. (2017) discuss how co-production in community development projects may lead to more inclusion, empowerment and equity. Co-production management, including the methods

5  CO-PRODUCTION EVALUATION 

97

used to select co-producers, services and activities, can exacerbate the gap between service outcomes for advantaged and disadvantaged citizens (Jakobsen and Andersen 2013). Cepiku and Giordano (2014) show that a lack of gender representativeness in lay actors resulted in a lower access to services by women. Co-production clashes with traditional values that the professionals deem crucial, such as equity, representativeness, and the neutrality of public service activities (Bussu and Galanti 2018; Tuurnas 2015). Thirdly, the effects of co-production on legitimacy and public acceptance are controversial. While some authors note that involving stakeholders contributes to a greater legitimacy and an increase in public support for a project (Papadopoulos and Warin (2007), there is evidence of a decreased level of acceptance (Bartenberger and Szescilo 2016). The fact that co-­ production modifies the relationships between government and citizens and among the citizens themselves challenges the existing sources of legitimacy, embedding the risk of inequalities and of a hidden transfer of power to ‘amateurs’ without accountability, a lack of compensation to citizens for their resource contributions and the risk of conflict between citizens with opposing interests (Meijer 2016, 605). 5.4.3  Social Economic Impact Finally, the value of co-production can be evaluated in terms of social economic impact, when it is possible to give a monetary value to the collective outcomes (Loeffler and Bovairs 2018). This has generally measured by assessing the implied tax savings (Brudney 1983) deriving from the lower cost of public service co-production initiatives (Loeffler and Bovaird 2016; Shandas and Messer 2008). Assuming a wider perspective, social economic impact could also be evaluated using a cost-benefit analysis and social return on investment approach or even further, including the economic valorisation of “quality of life” gained by a co-produced activity (using, for example, QALYs, ‘quality-adjusted life year’) (Loeffler and Bovairs 2018).

5.5   Co-production Impact on Public Value Since the first attempt to evaluate co-production, the literature has revealed a tendency to highlight its benefits for all stakeholders involved, overshadowing the number of potential pitfalls. Recently, the growing literature on the dark side of co-production has begun to make the risk related to these approaches explicit (Loeffler and

98 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Bovarid 2020), warning that they have to be managed by the multiple stakeholders involved in order to avoid value de-construction for lay actors, regular providers and community; the perception of exploitation; or, in the public sector, the perception of co-production as simply another form of back-door privatisation (Bovaird et al. 2017). Steen and colleagues (2018, 284) address ‘seven evils’: the deliberate rejection of responsibility, failing accountability, rising transaction costs, loss of democracy, reinforced inequalities, implicit demands and the co-­ destruction of public value. Some have been discussed above in this chapter (transaction costs, drawbacks on democracy and equity), others in the previous chapters as they threatened co-production activation (lay actor antecedents, impact of demand) and management (responsibility and accountability issues). In this section, attention is focused on the risk of public value de-construction. Service management scholars warn explicitly that co-production is not a normative good practice; they argue that value formation is associated with an interactive process between service providers and users that can lead to value co-creation but also to value co-destruction (Plé  and Chumpitaz Cáceres 2010; Echeverri and Skålén 2011). Value co-­ destruction occurs when a service system accidentally or intentionally misuses resources (its own resources and/or those of another service system) by acting in an inappropriate or unexpected manner (Plé and Chumpitaz Cáceres 2010). There are also failures in public services, although this insight has often been absent from much of the discourse about co-­ production (Oliver et al. 2019). Moving from the service-dominant logic, Williams et al. (2016) coined the concept of ‘value co-contamination’ to frame how service system interaction can negatively affect public values, due to the co-occurrence of a misuse of service providers and/or service user’s own resources. Value de-construction can result in missing opportunities to enhance societal value, such as public safety and order, in the case of misuse of community volunteer resources in the neighbourhood watch. Even worse, de-construction may occur as diminished progressive opportunities in already vulnerable communities when co-contaminating factors impact the effectiveness of the cooperative relationship (e.g., the failure to improve living and health conditions in a public housing development due to a lack of interaction between service providers and users). Similarly, the risk of public value co-destruction has been discussed in relation to health services (Palumbo and Manna 2018) and social innovation services (Brandsen and Honing 2016).

5  CO-PRODUCTION EVALUATION 

99

Finally, service management literature shows that value can be co-­ created and co-destroyed according to different value interaction practices (informing; greeting; delivering; charging and helping) (Echeverri and Skålén 2011). Value co-destruction can be mainly linked to an absence of information, an insufficient level of trust, mistakes, an inability to serve, an inability to change, the absence of clear expectations, customer misbehaviour and blaming (Jarvi et al. 2018). Four of these are causes of value co-­ destruction; (i) a lack of transparency, (ii) mistakes, (iii) a lack of bureaucratic competence, and (iv) an inability to serve. These causes can act differently to affect various actors’ misuse of resources, thus decreasing the value of one or more of the involved actors (Engen et al. 2020).

5.6   Concluding Remarks Scholars have made a great effort to discuss co-production outcomes. This framework is the first attempt to provide a clear categorisation of the outcomes according to the three categories of stakeholders: lay actors, regular service providers, and the community (see Table 5.1 for a systematisation of the of papers discussed). The effects on lay actors have mainly be investigated in the private literature, with a significant effort as regards satisfaction and the “mediators” that can enhance its magnitude. These can be distinguished in two main groups; those affecting satisfaction with the co-production process (perceived – cognitive, decisional, behavioural – control and perceived intensity of co-production) and those affecting satisfaction with service output (quality and features of service – specific/generic, social network-base). Of the regular provider outcomes of co-production, the literature mainly refers to efficiency. Public service research requires more effort to investigate other dimensions. Community is a distinctive component of the co-production outcomes in the public sector. In this respect, the literature has identified several performance dimensions; this framework is the first attempt to provide a classification using the following categories: ‘value to community’ (social value) and ‘value to society’ (democratisation of public service, equity in distributional consequences, legitimacy, acceptance, social economic impact). There is a need for empirical information to assess the impact of co-production at the community level. This contribution can be used as a blueprint for developing a multi-­ dimensional performance measurement system that factors in the perspectives of multiple stakeholders and helps to prioritise such benefits in the political process.

Learning

Awareness

Empowerment

Satisfaction with co-produced process is negative due to self-serving bias. Some factors can mediate the bias and increase satisfaction:   Lay actor perceived control;   Lay actor perceived intensity of co-production

Main theoretical assumptions and/or evidence

Main references

Bendapudi and Leone (2003), Esmark et al. (2016), Etgar (2008), Fledderus 2015b, Flores and Vasquez-Parraga (2015), Haumann et al. (2015), Mende et al. (2017), Pacheco et al. (2013), Stevens et al. (2017), Stokburger-Sauer et al. (2016), Wu (2011), Wu (2017), Zolfagharian et al. (2018) Lay actor’s subjective Quality of outcome directly impacts Dong et al. (2018), Dong and perception, customer satisfaction; in case of negative or Sivakumar (2015), Lindenmeier et al. experience and enjoyment ambiguous outcome, self-integration can (2019), Pacheco et al. (2017), Park of co-produced service mitigate the negative impact et al. (2018), Pestoff (2012), Troye and Specific service features (vs generic) Supphellen (2012), Xu et al. (2018) output increase satisfaction (but decrease regular provider productivity) Service recovery increase satisfaction Social-network-based service negatively affects satisfaction Type of co-production does not directly impact satisfaction Lay actor’s individual belief Co-production increases lay actor Cepiku and Giordano (2014), Essén in their ability to perform a empowerment et al. (2016), Ford and Dickson (2012), task Frieling et al. (2014), Jo and Nabatchi (2019), Sorrentino et al. (2017) Lay actor’s involvement, Co-production increases participants’ Jo and Nabatchi (2019) interest and education levels of issue awareness about issues The efficiency of lay actors Co-production enables customers to Field et al. (2012) as service co-producers become a more efficient co-producers

Lay actor’s subjective perception, customer experience and enjoyment of co-produced process

Lay actors

Satisfaction

Description

Main Type of output categorisation of outcomes

Table 5.1  Synthesis of the outcome of co-production

Regular service provider

Cost-efficiency

Externalities

Lay actor costs

(continued)

Psychological costs are likely to more Thomsen et al. (2020) affect citizens: (i) when they are encouraged to co-produce public services resulting in private benefits for relatives or friends in contrast to collective benefits for a larger group of people; and (ii) with low self-efficacy Impact of co-production Externalities are likely to be higher in Bovaird et al. (2015) on those indirectly affected collective than in individual by the consumption of co-production public goods Relationship between costs Trade-offs between cost-efficiency Andrews et al. (2014), Brudney’s of input and the related driven by workforce savings and costs (1983, 1984), Frieling et al. (2014), output (the amount of of citizen input Hilton (2008), Hoyer et al. (2010), service and its quality) McLennan (2018), Pestoff (2006), Prahalad and Ramaswamy (2000, 2004), Thomas (2015), Zambranogutiérrez et al. (2017) Co-production increases: Staff training Bartenberger and Szescilo (2016), and assistance costs, operational and Hilton (2013), Loeffler and Bovaird transactional costs (2016), Sorrentino et al. (2017), Thomas (2015) Co-production increases capital costs, Andrews and Erickson (2012), Bovaird specifically on ICT. Evidence of effects (2016), Clark and Guzman (2017), of digital technologies on cost Hilton (2008), Lember (2018), Lember efficiency is diverging et al. (2019), Linders (2012), Mcloughlin et al. (2009)

Costs related to different aspects of lay actor participation in co-production (e.g., learning training activities, managing operations, etc.)

Environmental uncertainty

Effects on workforce

Effectiveness

Main Type of output categorisation of outcomes

Table 5.1  (continued)

Co-production increases service quality, especially in knowledge intensive sector and also mitigates potential negative reactions in the event of a provider’s service failures

Main theoretical assumptions and/or evidence

Main references

Bettencourt et al. (2002), Bovaird and Löffler (2012), Koc et al. (2017), Mustak (2019), Palumbo et al. (2018), Radnor et al. (2014), Troye and Supphellen (2012), Walasek et al. (2017) Co-production positively affects Boyle and Harris (2009), Hsieh and organisational adaptability and flexibility Hsieh (2015), Osborne et al. (2015) and advancing innovation Workforce productivity and Employee satisfaction can be increased Wu (2017) satisfaction through deep acting and decreased using surface acting Loss of control in service Co-production increases uncertainty; in Fledderus et al. (2014a), van den process order to minimise such uncertainty, a Bekerom et al. (2016) service provider result in a reduction of opportunities for users to co-produce Co-production may also moderate or even offset the negative effects of environmental turbulence on organisational performance

The capacity of alternative service delivery arrangement to achieve an increase of service quality

Description

Community

Social economic impact

Democratisation of public services

Value to society

Monetary value to the collective outcomes

Legitimacy and public acceptance

Equity in distributional consequences

Social capital

Trust in government

Value to community

Trust

Cutcher (2010), Loeffer and Bovaird (2018), Marks and Lawson (2005), Levine and Fisher (1984), Osborne et al. (2016), Sudhipongpracha and Wongpredee (2016) Bartenberger and Szescilo (2016), Brudney (1983, 1984), Loeffler and Bovaird (2016), Pestoff (2009)

Fledderus et al. (2014b), Fledderus (2015b), Kang and Van Ryzin (2019)

Akaateba et al. (2018), Brudney (1983), Grabosky (1992), Jakobsen and Andersen (2013), Meijer (2016), O’Brien et al. (2017), Barbera et al. (2016), Bussu and Galanti (2018), Cepiku and Giordano (2014), Vanleene et al. (2017), Tuurnas (2015) Bartenberger and Szescilo (2016), Meijer (2016), Papadopoulos and Warin (2007). Co-production implies tax savings Brudney (1983), Loeffler and Bovaird Other benefits could be captured using (2016), Loeffler and Bovaird (2018), cost-benefit analysis and social return on Shandas and Messer (2008) investment

Co-production challenges:   The democratisation of public service   The risk of inequality in the distribution or allocation of benefits coming   The existing sources of legitimacy

Theoretical works suggest that co-production of public services may generate greater trust. Empirical evidence provides divergent results Co-production enhances social capital with some trade-offs comparing community and user-led co-production

104 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

The analysis shows that the relationships between the different outcome types, has been all but neglected. Outcomes can reinforce each other or manifest trade-offs, including between short and longer terms co-­ production results. What those trade-offs are, when they emerge and how they can be managed are thus interesting topics to investigate. Finally, the literature has considered co-production as an end benefit in itself. Actually, despite the promising results reports, this chapter shows that there may not be positive results in every co-production effort.

References Akaateba, A.M., H.  Huang, and A.E.  Adumpo. 2018. Between Co-production and Institutional Hybridity in Land Delivery: Insights from Local Planning Practice in Peri-Urban Tamale, Ghana. Land Use Policy 72: 215–226. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.12.043. Alford, J., and S. Yates. 2016. Co-production of Public Services in Australia: The Roles of Government Organisations and Co-producers. Australian Journal of Public Administration 75 (2): 159–175. https://doi.org/10.1111/ 1467-8500.12157. Andrews, N.O., and D.J. Erickson. 2012. Investing in What Works for America’s Communities. San Francisco: Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco. Andrews, R., R. Ashworth, and K.J. Meier. 2014. Representative Bureaucracy and Fire Service Performance. International Public Management Journal 17 (1): 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2014.874253. Annala, L., A. Sarin, and J.L. Green. 2018. Co-production of Frugal Innovation: Case of Low Cost Reverse Osmosis Water Filters in India. Journal of Cleaner Production 171: S110–S118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.065. Averill, J.R. 1973. Personal Control over Aversive Stimuli and Its Relationship to Stress. Psychological Bulletin 80 (4): 286–303. https://doi. org/10.1037/h0034845. Barbera, C., M.  Sicilia, and I.  Steccolini. 2016. What Mr. Rossi Wants in Participatory Budgeting: Two Rs (Responsiveness and Representation) and Two Is (Iteration and Inclusiveness). International Journal of Public Administration 39 (13): 1088–1100. https://doi.org/10.1080/0190069 2.2016.1177839. Bartenberger, M., and D. Szescilo. 2016. The Benefits and Risks of Experimental Co-production: The Case of Urban Redesign in Vienna. Public Administration 94 (2): 509–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12233. van den Bekerom P., Torenvlied R., and Akkerman A. 2016. Managing All Quarters of the Compass? How Internally Oriented Managerial Networking Moderates the Impact of Environmental Turbulence on Organizational Performance. The American Review of Public Administration 46 (6): 639–659. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074015571123.

5  CO-PRODUCTION EVALUATION 

105

Bendapudi, N., and R.P.  Leone. 2003. Psychological Implications Customer Participation in Co-production. Journal of Marketing 67 (1): 14–28. https:// doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.67.1.14.18592. Bettencourt, L.A., A.L. Ostrom, S.W. Brown, and R.I. Roundtree. 2002. Client Co-production in Knowledge-Intensive Business Services. California Management Review 44 (4): 100–128. https://doi.org/10.2307/41166145. Bovaird, T. 2012. Attributing Outcomes to Social Policy Interventions – ‘Gold Standard’ or ‘Fool’s Gold’ in Public Policy and Management? Social Policy and Administration 48 (1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9515.2012. 00869.x. Bovaird, T., and E.  Loeffler. 2012. From Engagement to Co-production: The Contribution of Users and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23 (4): 1119–1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6. ———. 2016. User and Community Co-production of Public Services: What Does the Evidence Tell Us? International Journal of Public Administration 39 (13): 1006–1019. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2016.1250559. Bovaird, T., G.G. Van Ryzin, E. Loeffler, and S. Parrado. 2015. Activating Citizens to Participate in Collective Co-production of Public Services. Journal of Social Policy 44 (1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047279414000567. Bovaird, T., S. Flemig, E. Loeffler, and S.P. Osborne. 2017. Debate: Co-production of Public Services and Outcomes. Public Money & Management 37 (5): 363–364. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2017.1294866. Boyle, David, and M. Harris. 2009. The Challenge of Co-production. London: New Economics Foundation. Brandsen, T., and M. Honingh. 2016. Distinguishing Different Types of Co-production: A Conceptual Analysis Based on the Classical Definitions. Public Administration Review 76 (3): 427–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/ puar.12465. Brudney, J.L. 1983. The Evaluation of Co-production Programs. Policy Studies Journal 12 (2). https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1983.tb00279.x. ———. 1984. Local Co-production of Services and the Analysis of Municipal Productivity. Urban Affairs Quarterly 19 (4). https://doi.org/10.1177/ 004208168401900405. Brudney, J.L., and R.E. England. 1983. Toward a Definition of the Co-production Concept. Public Administration Review 43 (1): 59–65. https://doi. org/10.2307/975300. Bussu, S., and M.T.  Galanti. 2018. Facilitating Co-production: The Role of Leadership in Co-production Initiatives in the UK. Policy and Society 37 (3): 347–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1414355. Cepiku, D., and F.  Giordano. 2014. Co-production in Developing Countries: Insights from the Community Health Workers Experience. Public Management Review 16 (3): 317–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.822535.

106 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Chen, C.V., and C. Chen. 2017. The Role of Customer Participation for Enhancing Repurchase Intention. Management Decision 55 (3): 547–562. https://doi. org/10.1108/MD-06-2016-0380. Cheung, M.F.Y., and W. M. To. 2011. Customer Involvement and Perceptions: The Moderating Role of Customer Co-production. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 18: 271–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser. 2010.12.011. Clark, B.Y., and T.S.  Guzman. 2017. Does Technologically Enabled Citizen Participation Lead to Budget Adjustments? An Investigation of Boston, MA, and San Francisco, CA. The American Review of Public Administration 47 (8): 945–961. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074016642568. Cutcher, L. 2010. Local Heroes: Co-producing History, ‘Community’ and the Self. Consumption Markets & Culture 13 (1): 37–41. https://doi. org/10.1080/10253860903346773. Dong, B., and K. Sivakumar. 2015. A Process-Output Classification for Customer Participation in Services. Journal of Service Management 26 (5): 726–750. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-01-2015-0005. Dong, B., K.R. Evans, and S. Zou. 2008. The Effects of Customer Participation in Co-created Service Recovery. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36: 123–137. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-007-0059-8. Dudau A., R. Glennon, and B. Verschuere. 2019. Following the Yellow Brick Road? (Dis)enchantment with Co-design, Co-production and Value Co-creation in Public Services. Public Management Review 21 (11): 1577–1594. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1653604. Echeverri P., and P. Skålén. 2011. Co-creation and Co-destruction: A practice Theory Based Study of Interactive Value Formation. Marketing Theory 11 (3): 351–373. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593111408181. Engen M., M. Fransson, J. Quist, and P. Skålén. 2020. Continuing the Development of the Public Service Logic: A Study of Value Co-destruction in Public Services. Public Management Review. https://doi.org/10.108 0/14719037.2020.1720354. Esmark, C.L., S.M.  Noble, J.E.  Bell, and D.A.  Griffith. 2016. The Effects of Behavioral, Cognitive, and Decisional Control in Co-production Service Experiences. Marketing Letters 27 (3): 423–436. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11002-015-9348-z. Essén, A., S.  Winterstorm, and V.K.  Liljedal. 2016. Co-production in Chronic Care: Exploitation and Empowerment. European Journal of Marketing 50 (5/6): 846–860. https://doi.org/10.1108/EJM-02-2015-0067. Etgar, M. 2008. A Descriptive Model of the Consumer Co-production Process. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science 36: 97–108. https://doi. org/10.1007/s11747-007-0061-1. Field, J.M., M. Xue, and L.M. Hitt. 2012. Learning by Customers as Co-producers in Financial Services: An Empirical Study of the Effects of Learning Channels and Customer Characteristics. Operation Management Research 5: 43–56. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12063-012-0064-z.

5  CO-PRODUCTION EVALUATION 

107

Fledderus, J. 2015a. Building Trust Through Public Service Co-production. International Journal of Public Sector Management 28 (7): 550–556. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-06-2015-0118. ———. 2015b. Does User Co-production of Public Service Delivery Increase Satisfaction and Trust? Evidence from a Vignette Experiment. International Journal of Public Administration 38 (9): 642–653. https://doi.org/10.108 0/01900692.2014.952825. Fledderus, J., T.  Brandsen, and M.E.  Honing. 2014a. User Co-production of Public Service Delivery: An Uncertainty Approach. Public Policy and Administration 30 (2): 145–164. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0952076715572362. Fledderus, J., T. Brandsen, and M. Honingh. 2014b. Restoring Trust Through the Co-production of Public Services, a Theoretical Elaboration. Public Management Review 16 (3): 424–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/1471903 7.2013.848920. Flores, J., and A.Z. Vasquez-Parraga. 2015. The Impact of Choice on Co-produced Customer Value Creation and Satisfaction. Journal of Consumer Marketing 32 (1): 15–25. https://doi.org/10.1108/JCM-04-2014-0931. Ford, R.C., and D.R.  Dickson. 2012. Enhancing Customer Self-Efficacy in Co-producing Service Experiences. Business Horizons 55: 179–188. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.bushor.2011.11.005. Frieling, M., S. Lindenberg, and F.N. Stokman. 2014. Collaborative Communities Through Co-production: Two Case Studies. The American Review of Public Administration 44 (1): 35–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012456897. Füller, J., H.  Mühlbacher, K.  Matzler, and G.  Jawecki. 2009. Consumer Empowerment Through Internet-Based Co-creation. Journal of Management Information Systems 26 (3): 71–102. https://doi.org/10.2753/MIS07421222260303. Golder, P.N., D. Mitra, and C. Moorman. 2012. What Is Quality? An Integrative Framework of Processes and States. Journal of Marketing 76 (4): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1509/jm.09.0416. Grabosky, P.N. 1992. Law Enforcement and the Citizen: Non-governmental Participants in Crime Prevention and Control. Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy 2 (4): 249–271. https://doi. org/10.1080/10439463.1992.9964647. Haumann, T., P.  Güntürkün, L.M.  Schons, and J.  Wieseke. 2015. Engaging Customers in Co-production Processes: How Value-Enhancing and Intensity-­ Reducing Communication Strategies Mitigate the Negative Effects of Co-production Intensity. Journal of Marketing 79: 17–33. https://doi. org/10.1509/jm.14.0357. Hilton, T. 2008. Leveraging Operant Resources of Consumers: Improving Consumer Experiences or Productivity? The Marketing Review 8 (4): 359–366. https://doi.org/10.1362/146934708X378631.

108 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Hilton, T., T.  Hughes, E.  Little, and E.  Marandi. 2013. Adopting Self-Service Technology to Do More with Less. Journal of Services Marketing 27 (1): 3–12. https://doi.org/10.1108/08876041311296338. Hoyer, W.D., R. Chandy, M. Dorotic, M. Krafft, and S.S. Singh. 2010. Consumer Cocreation in New Product Development. Journal of Service Research 13 (3): 283–296. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670510375604. Hsieh, J., and Y.  Hsieh. 2015. Dialogic Co-creation and Service Innovation Performance in High-Tech Companies. Journal of Business Research 68 (11): 2266–2271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2015.06.009. Jakobsen, M., and S.C.  Andersen. 2013. Co-production and Equity in Public Service Delivery. Public Administration Review 73 (5): 704–713. https://doi. org/10.1111/puar.12094. Jo, S., and T. Nabatchi. 2019. Coproducing Healthcare: Individual-Level Impacts of Engaging Citizens to Develop Recommendations for Reducing Diagnostic Error. Public Management Review 21 (3): 354–375. https://doi.org/10.108 0/14719037.2018.1487577. Kang, S., and G.G. Van Ryzin. 2019. Co-production and Trust in Government: Evidence from Survey Experiments. Public Management Review 21 (11): 1646–1664. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619812. Koc, E., M. Ulukoy, R. Kilic, S. Yumusak, and R. Bahar. 2017. The Influence of Customer Participation on Service Failure Perceptions. Total Quality Management & Business Excellence 28 (3–4): 390–404. https://doi.org/1 0.1080/14783363.2015.1090290. Lember, V. 2018. The Role of New Technologies in Co-production and Co-creation. In Co-production and co-creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Service Delivery, ed. T.  Brandsen, T.  Steen, and B.  Verschuere, 115–127. London/New York: Routledge. Lember, V., T. Brandsen, and P. Tõnurist. 2019. The Potential Impacts of Digital Technologies on Co-production and Co-creation. Public Management Review 21 (11): 1665–1686. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619807. Levine, C.H., and G. Fisher. 1984. Citizenship and Service Delivery: The Promise of Co-production. Public Administration Review 44: 178–189. https://doi. org/10.2307/3380451. Lindenmeier, J., A.K.  Seemann, O.  Potluka, and G. von Schnurbein. 2019. Co-production as a Driver of Client Satisfaction with Public Service Organizations: An Analysis of German Day-Care Centres. Public Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1674366. Linders, D. 2012. From E-Government to We-Government: Defining a Typology for Citizen Co-production in the Age of Social Media. Government Information Quarterly 29: 446–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003. Loeffler, E., and T. Bovaird. 2016. User and Community Co-production of Public Services: What Does the Evidence Tell Us? International Journal of Public Administration 39 (13): 1006–1019. https://doi.org/10.1080/0190069 2.2016.1250559.

5  CO-PRODUCTION EVALUATION 

109

———. 2018. Assessing the Effect of Co-Production on Out-comes, Service Quality and Efficiency. In Co-Production and Co-Creation Engag-ing Citizens in Public Services, ed. T. Brandsen, T. Steen and B. Verschuere, 269–279. Routledge. ———. 2020. Assessing the Impact of Co-production on Pathways to Outcomes in Public Services: The Case of Policing and Criminal Justice. International Public Management Journal 23 (2): 205–223. https://doi.org/10.108 0/10967494.2019.1668895. Marks, M.B., and H.A. Lawson. 2005. Co-production Dynamics and Time Dollar Programs in Community-Based Child Welfare Initiatives for Hard-to-Serve Youth and Families. Child Welfare 84 (2): 209–232. McLennan, B.J. 2018. Conditions for Effective Co-production in Community-­ Led Disaster Risk Management. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 31: 316–332. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11266-018-9957-2. Mcloughlin, I., G. Maniatopoulos, and M. Martin. 2009. Hope to Die Before You Get Old? Public Management Review 11 (6): 37–41. https://doi. org/10.1080/14719030903319002. Meijer, A. 2014. New Media and the Co-production of Safety: An Empirical Analysis of Dutch Practices. American Review of Public Administration 44 (1): 17–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074012455843. ———. 2016. Co-production as a Structural Transformation of the Public Sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management 29 (6): 596–611. https:// doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-01-2016-0001. Mende, M., M.L.  Scott, M.J.  Bitner, and A.L.  Ostrom. 2017. Activating Consumers for Better Service Co-production Outcomes Through Eustress: The Interplay of Firm-Assigned Workload, Service Literacy, and Organizational Support. Journal of Public Policy & Marketing 36 (1): 137–155. https://doi. org/10.1509/jppm.14.099. Moore, M.H. 1995. Creating Public Value: Strategic Management in Government. Cambridge, London: Harvard University Press. Mustak, M. 2019. Customer Participation in Knowledge Intensive Business Services: Perceived Value Outcomes from a Dyadic Perspective. Industrial Marketing Management 78: 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. indmarman.2017.09.017. Nabatchi, T., A. Sancino, and M. Sicilia. 2017. Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The Who, When, and What of Co-production. Public Administration Review 77 (5): 766–776. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12765. O’Brien, D.T., D.  Offenhuber, J.  Baldwin-Philippi, M.  Sands, and E.  Gordon. 2017. Uncharted Territoriality in Co-production: The Motivations for 311 Reporting. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 27 (2): 320–335. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muw046. Oliver, K., A. Kothari, and N. Mays. 2019. The Dark Side of Coproduction: Do the Costs Outweigh the Benefits for Health Research? Health Research Policy and Systems 17: 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3.

110 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Osborne, S.P., Z.  Radnor, T.  Kinder, and I.  Vidal. 2015. The SERVICE Framework: A Public-Service-Dominant Approach to Sustainable Public Services. British Journal of Management 26 (3): 424–438. https://doi. org/10.1111/1467-8551.12094. Osborne, S.P., Z.  Radnor, and K.  Strokosch. 2016. Co-production and the Co-creation of Value in Public Services: A Suitable Case for Treatment? Public Management Review 18 (5): 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/1471903 7.2015.1111927. Pacheco, N.A., R.  Lunardo, and C.  Pizzutti dos Santos. 2013. A Perceived-­ Control Based Model to Understanding the Effects of Co-production on Satisfaction. Brazilian Administration Review 10 (2): 219–238. https://doi. org/10.1590/S1807-76922013000200007. ———, N.A., L.C.B. Becker, and V. Andrade Brei. 2017. A Light in the Dark: The Benefits of Co-production in Service Failures. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 34 (Jan): 95–101. Palumbo, R., and R. Manna. 2018. What If Things Go Wrong in Co-producing Health Services? Exploring the Implementation Problems of Health Care Co-production. Policy and Society 37 (3): 368–385. https://doi.org/10.108 0/14494035.2018.1411872. Palumbo, R., S. Vezzosi, P. Picciolli, A. Landini, C. Annarumma, and R. Manna. 2018. International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing 15: 371–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-018-0205-7. Papadopoulos, Y., and P.  Warin. 2007. Are Innovative, Participatory and Deliberative Procedures in Policy Making Democratic and Effective? European Journal of Political Research 46 (4): 445–472. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1475-6765.2007.00696.x. Park, C., H.  Lee, J.  Jun, and T.  Lee. 2018. Two-Sided Effects of Customer Participation: Roles of Relationships and Social-Interaction Values in Social Services. Service Business 12 (3): 621–640. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11628-017-0357-2. Pestoff, V. 2006. Citizens and Co-production of Welfare Services. Public Management Review 8 (4): 503–519. https://doi.org/10.1080/ 14719030601022882. ———. 2009. Towards a Paradigm of Democratic Participation: Citizen Participation and Co-production of Personal Social Services in Sweden. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics 80 (2): 197–224. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.1467-8292.2009.00384.x. ———. 2012. Co-production and Third Sector Social Services in Europe: Some Concepts and Evidence. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23: 1102–1118. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11266-012-9308-7. Plé, L., and Chumpitaz Cáceres, R. 2010. Not Always Co‐creation: Introducing Interactional Co‐destruction of Value in Service‐Dominant Logic. Journal of Services Marketing 24 (6): 430–437. https://doi.org/10.1108/ 08876041011072546.

5  CO-PRODUCTION EVALUATION 

111

Prahalad, C.K., and V.  Ramaswamy. 2000. Co-opting Customer Competence. Harvard Business Review 78: 79–87. ———. 2004. Co-creation Experiences: The Next Practice in Value Creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing 18: 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1002/dir.20015. Radnor, Z., S.P. Osborne, and T. Kinder. 2014. Operationalizing Co-production in Public Services Delivery: The Contribution of Service Blueprinting. Public Management Review 16 (3): 402–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/1471903 7.2013.848923. Shandas, V., and W.B.  Messer. 2008. Fostering Green Communities Through Civic Engagement: Community-Based Environmental Stewardship in the Portland. Journal of the American Planning Association 74 (4): 408–418. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360802291265. Sicilia, M., E.  Guarini, A.  Sancino, M.  Andreani, and R.  Ruffini. 2016. Public Services Management and Co-production in Multi-Level Governance Settings. International Review of Administrative Sciences 82 (1): 8–27. https://doi. org/10.1177/0020852314566008. Sorrentino, M., C.  Guglielmetti, S.  Gilardi, and M.  Marsilio. 2017. Healthcare Services and the Co-production Puzzle: Filling in the Blanks. Administration and Society 49 (10): 1424–1449. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 0095399715593317. Steen, T., Taco Brandsen, and Bram Verschuere. 2018. The Dark Side of Co-creation and Co-production Seven Evils. In Co-production and Co-creation Engaging Citizens in Public Services, ed. Taco Brandsen, Trui Steen, and Bram Verschuere, 284–293. New York: Routledge. Stevens, J., C.L. Esmark, S.M. Noble, and N.Y. Lee. 2017. Co-producing with Consumers: How Varying Levels of Control and Co-production Impact Affect. Marketing Letters 28 (2): 171–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-0169413-2. Stokburger-Sauer, N.E., U. Scholl-Grissemann, K. Teichmann, and M. Wetzels. 2016. Value Cocreation at Its Peak: The Asymmetric Relationship Between Co-production and Loyalty. Journal of Service Management 27 (4): 563–590. https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-10-2015-0305. Sudhipongpracha, T., and A.  Wongpredee. 2016. Decentralizing Decentralized Governance: Community Empowerment and Co-production of Municipal Public Works in Northeast Thailand. Community Development Journal Advance 51 (2): 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/cdj/bsv026. Thomas, J.C. 2015. Citizen, Customer, Partner: Engaging the Public in Public Management. New York: Routledge. Thomsen, M.K., M. Baekgaard, and U.J. Jensen. 2020. The Psychological Costs of Citizen Co-production. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory: 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa001. Troye, S.V., and M. Supphellen. 2012. Consumer Participation in Co-production: ‘I Made It Myself’ Effects on Consumers’ Sensory Perceptions and Evaluations of Outcome and Input Product. Journal of Marketing 76 (2): 33–46. https:// doi.org/10.2307/41406847.

112 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

Trummer, U.F., U.O. Mueller, P. Nowak, T. Stidl, and J.M. Pelikan. 2006. Does Physician Patient Communication that Aims at Empowering Patients Improve Clinical Outcome? A Case Study. Patient Education and Counseling 61 (2): 299–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2005.04.009. Tuurnas, S. 2015. Learning to Co-produce? The Perspective of Public Service Professionals. International Journal of Public Sector Management 28 (7): 583–598. https://doi.org/10.1108/IJPSM-04-2015-0073. ———. 2016. Looking Beyond the Simplistic Ideals of Participatory Projects: Fostering Effective Co-production? International Journal of Public Administration 39 (13): 1077–1087. https://doi.org/10.1080/0190069 2.2016.1178284. Vanleene, D., J.  Voets, and B.  Verschuere. 2017. Co-producing a Nicer Neighbourhood: Why Do People Participate in Local Community Development Projects? Lex Localis-Journal of Local Self-Government 15 (1): 111–132. https://doi.org/10.4335/15.1.111-132. Walasek, L., T.I.M. Rakow, and W.J. Matthews. 2017. When Does Construction Enhance Product Value? Investigating the Combined Effects of Object Assembly and Ownership on Valuation. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making 30 (2). https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1931. Williams B.N., S.C. Kang, and J. Johnson. 2016. (Co)-Contamination as the Dark Side of Co-Production: Public Value Failures in Co-Production Processes. Public Management Review 18 (5): 692–717. https://doi.org/10.108 0/14719037.2015.1111660. Wolosin, R.J., S.J.  Sherman, and A.  Till. 1973. Effects of Cooperation and Competition on Responsibility Attribution After Success and Failure. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 9 (3): 220–235. https://doi. org/10.1016/0022-1031(73)90011-5. Wu, C.H. 2011. A Re-examination of the Antecedents and Impact of Customer Participation in Service. The Service Industries Journal 31 (6): 863–876. https://doi.org/10.1080/02642060902960768. Wu, L. 2017. The Bright Side and Dark Side of Co-production: A Dyadic Analysis. Management Decision 55 (3): 614–631. https://doi.org/10.1108/ MD-11-2016-0789. Xu, H., Y. Liu, and X. Lyu. 2018. Customer Value Co-creation and New Service Evaluation: The Moderating Role of Outcome Quality. International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management 30 (4): 2020–2036. https://doi. org/10.1108/IJCHM-08-2016-0467. Zambrano-gutiérrez, J.C., S. Nicholson-Crotty, and A. Rutherford. 2017. Types of Co-production and Differential Effects on Organizational Performance: Evidence from the New  York City School System. Public Administration 95 (3): 776–790. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12351. Zolfagharian, M., R. Felix, and J. Braun. 2018. Boundary Conditions of the Effect of Customer Co-production: The Case of Service Failure. Journal of Marketing Management 34 (9–10): 705–731. https://doi.org/10.1080/0267257X. 2018.1474243.

CHAPTER 6

Conclusions

Abstract  This chapter concludes the findings of the systematic literature review and discusses the dynamic interplay between the pillars of the framework. In particular, the chapter demonstrated how the different pillars and analytical components identified in the framework combine with each other and how the different configurations may facilitate or hinder co-production implementation and its outcomes. Implications are put forward for policy makers, public managers and community leaders eager to adopt a co-production arrangement in service delivery. The framework provides a conceptual map with which to better understand how the activation and management of co-production unfolds and a relevant framework for the measurement and evaluation of co-­ produced outcomes in the public sector. Finally, venues for future research and implication for practitioners are identified. Keywords  Research findings • Theoretical advancement • Co-production levers • Open research questions • Collaborative governance

© The Author(s) 2020 D. Cepiku et al., The Co-production of Public Services, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60710-4_6

113

114 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

6.1   A Comprehensive Framework on Co-production The main result of the research presented in this book is the comprehensive framework on the activation, implementation and evaluation of co-­ production. The framework is structured according to the most commonly used pillars in the collaborative governance literature, and developed in order to identify and classify, under each pillar, the analytical components retrieved from the co-production literature. The public and private sector co-production literature was both investigated, as the second stream has been considered well-developed and able to offer valuable insights into public sector co-production, with the caveat of taking into due consideration context differences between the two sectors. The general context has attracted limited attention from public sector scholars compared with the evidence collected on the other pillars. In particular, the elements that were recognised as important in Chap. 3 are: state and governance traditions, regulatory framework, nature of the welfare state, and the availability of economic, social and infrastructural resources. Chapter 3 also analysed the interrelationships with the other pillars, and suggested that some context elements and antecedents can be more easily managed through specific co-production management levers, others require more time to be modified and others are exogenous. Chapter 3 also reported findings on the second pillar: the antecedents of co-production. Evidence was grouped into three tiers: the lay actors, the regular providers and the service that is co-produced. With specific reference to lay actors, several antecedents are identified, such as demographic and socio-economic characteristics, motivational factors, socio-­psychological characteristics, and resource availability. Among the characteristics of the regular provider organisation that may affect co-­ production activation are: the degree of user orientation, the acceptance of the right of the lay actor to be a partner in the process, and organisational culture. The last set of antecedents is related to the specific characteristics of the co-produced service, in terms of its continuity and duration, the extent to which tasks are easy to perform, and the service salience. Scholars have focused their research mainly on lay actors, investigating the conditions that affect their willingness to participate in co-production activities, however, results are often inconclusive. Antecedents related to regular providers and the type of services have attracted less attention.

6 CONCLUSIONS 

115

Chapter 4 illustrates the co-production management pillar. During implementation, public and community managers employ levers such as institutional arrangements, planning, communication, the management of lay actors and professionals, leadership, and accountability and performance management systems, which address specific antecedents and management challenges and play a key role in the success/failure and the sustainability of the co-production initiative. The success of co-production depends not only on the general context and antecedents, but also on the ability to define suitable institutional arrangements, to adopt effective plans and communication strategies, to manage lay actors and professionals well, and to effectively lead and be accountable. The recent interest in the high complexity and failure rate of co-production has paved the way for widespread agreement that the design and implementation of co-­ production initiatives affect the quality of collaboration and its outcomes. The analysis shows the great interest of public sector scholars in four components (institutional arrangements, communication strategies, the management of lay actors, and management of professionals). Planning, leadership and accountability, on the contrary, have received scant attention. Institutional arrangements are usually the first aspects to be defined when implementing co-production: the design of service delivery channels and structure; the formal rules governing the interaction between lay actors and regular providers/public sector professionals; and the intensity, size and scope of co-production. The definition of service delivery channels and the intensity of co-production have been largely overlooked in the public sector. On the other hand, private sector literature provides interesting insights, yet to be tested in the public sector, regarding how to mitigate the negative effects of the effort required for high-intensity co-­ production. Instead, the public sector literature has focused mainly on the formal rules of co-production, such as eligibility criteria, definition of boundaries and allocation of responsibilities. How the allocation of responsibilities between the regular provider and service users may affect their willingness to co-produce, their satisfaction and trust, however, require further investigation. Communication strategies have received growing interest from scholars, especially in recent years with the advent of digital technologies. These do not always encourage co-production and can also be used to bypass interaction with citizens. Co-production management cannot always decide how to design specific digital solutions for the co-produced service.

116 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

An examination of people management in co-production reveals great interest in the characteristics, behaviours and effects on lay actors compared to scarce attention paid to professionals. Classifying lay actors as temporary employees, as some authors propose, is at odds with the fact that they do not fit in the organisational hierarchy like normal employees. It indicates the need to rethink traditional tools like training and motivation-­building, and also to enhance tools such as socialisation and group identity building. While it has been observed that public service professionals play an important role as the initiators and coordinators of co-production, they have not received the same level of attention in terms of characteristics, behaviours and outcomes as the lay actors. Another relevant contribution of the book is the systematisation of the literature on co-production outcomes. The framework proposed in this book is one of the first attempts to provide a clear categorisation of the outcomes according to the three categories of stakeholders: the lay actors, the regular service providers, and the community. This contribution can be used as a blueprint for developing a multidimensional performance measurement system to monitor the real effect and impacts of co-­ production initiatives from multi-stakeholder perspectives, and helps to prioritise such benefits in the political process. The literature has often considered co-production as a benefit in itself. Actually, despite the promising results reports, Chap. 5 shows that the positive results of co-­ production are not automatic. The private literature on lay actors and regular provider outcomes of co-production has mainly focused on costs, efficiency and user satisfaction with co-production, providing a starting point for developing similar measures for the public sector. The private sector literature also provides useful insights into the analysis of the mediators of lay actor satisfaction, investigating what can enhance satisfaction. These mediators can be distinguished into two main groups: those affecting satisfaction with the co-production process (perceived  – cognitive, decisional, behavioural – control and perceived intensity of co-­production) and those affecting satisfaction with the service output (quality and features of service – specific/generic, social network-base). Finally, the larger community is a distinctive beneficiary of co-production outcomes. In this respect, the literature has identified several performance dimensions; this framework is the first attempt to provide a classification using the following categories: ‘value to community’ (social value), ‘value to society’ (democratisation of public service, equity in distributional consequences, legitimacy, acceptance) and social economic impact. It is worth noting

6 CONCLUSIONS 

117

that, in this respect, the public sector literature on co-production can be informative for the less developed private sector literature. In fact, although the aims of private co-production initiatives are seldom connected to social and public value, measuring and reporting this kind of impact can also be relevant.

6.2   Future Research Agenda Analysis of the literature has shown that, so far, studies have often focused on specific dimensions of the co-production framework, ignoring the general picture. This indicates that future studies should investigate how the different components interrelate. Several further research avenues can be suggested. First, the evidence systematised into the framework suggests that co-­ production is a context-dependent phenomenon and paves the way for further analysis to investigate the relative importance of these elements and the magnitude and direction of their effect on the practices of co-production. Second, findings about the conditions that affect the willingness of lay actors to participate in co-production activities are often inconclusive, and it is still not clear how the different antecedents interact in facilitating or hampering the lay actors’ behaviour. Further research could therefore address how these characteristics and their combination may affect the activation of co-production, its management and the consequent outcomes. Third, future studies should provide further evidence about which characteristics of the services are more conducive to co-production and how their combination may affect the activation of co-production, its management and the consequent outcomes. There is a particular need to understand under which conditions co-production can be activated for services that are not generic, do not require complex actions and coordination with others, and do not necessarily generate private benefits. Fourth, the framework suggests that while the characteristics of the general context and the antecedents can affect the co-production outcomes, the co-production management levers can both address some of the challenges stemming from the context and antecedents, and shape the final outcomes. The latter will also feed back into the antecedents (e.g., level of participant trust). In this respect many research questions may arise. Which co-production management tools are more effective in

118 

D. CEPIKU ET AL.

addressing particular challenges posed by the general context and especially the antecedents? For instance, which institutional arrangements work best when trust among the actors involved is low? How can the management of the collaborating actors (lay actors and professionals) address representativeness issues? What combinations of co-production management tools are more effective? Can communication mitigate the negative effects of high-intensity co-production and how? Which are the most effective combinations of motivation-building mechanisms vis-à-vis lay actor characteristics? Chapter 4 noted that research into co-production management is still novel, especially in the public sector. This could be ascribed to an initial co-production euphoria, but also to a diffused view that co-production should be spontaneous and not guided by public or community managers. The acknowledgement that co-production initiatives can fail and bring about value destruction has paved the way for new studies on co-­ production management and implementation; such a growth of studies is, however, happening in a fragmented way (i.e., around single tools). Future research must thus pay particular attention to the lack of a systemic view, be able to bring together all management tools and, especially, to highlight cause-effect links between management and outcomes of co-­ production. Little is known about the leadership behaviours and skills needed to guide and sustain co-production over time, which is surprising given that the public service professionals and community leaders are key players in the implementation and coordination of co-production. There is also a paucity of research on the use of accountability as a co-production management tool. Future research can benefit from the blame-avoidance literature and from the more general literature on performance measurement in networks. Sixth, the analysis of co-production outcomes has shown that the relationship between the different outcome types has been neglected. Outcomes can reinforce each other or manifest trade-offs, including between short and longer terms co-production results. Identifying the trade-offs, when they emerge and how they can be managed are interesting topics for investigation. Finally, empirical evidence is needed to assess the impact of co-production at the community level. Seventh, future research should also trace the connection across all the pillars providing insights into strategies and tools that help guarantee the sustainability of co-production in the long term from a systemic perspective, highlighting the results of the multi-actors and their relationships.

6 CONCLUSIONS 

119

Finally, these research avenues should be addressed, not just at a fixed point in time but also dynamically and from a longitudinal perspective. Taking into account the temporal perspective, a wide range of empirical approaches could be applied. Longitudinal case studies are particularly useful to better understand the evolutionary path and dynamics of co-­ production over time. Analyses that embrace a configurational approach may highlight how multiple factors interact in co-production, going beyond one-to-one relationships. Finally, the combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches is suitable for the maturity level of the topic to ensure the understanding of co-production is robust and valid.

6.3   Implications for Policy and Practice The main operational implication of this research is the comprehensive framework that is of immediate use by public managers and community leaders engaged in co-production initiatives. The framework promotes a comprehensive and overarching approach to co-production that prompts managers to look at all aspects dynamically affecting collaboration between lay actors (individuals, groups or collective) and service providers, starting from a consideration of the context and antecedents to assess the feasibility of co-production, followed by the need to equip themselves with essential management levers to employ during co-production implementation, and concluding with the need to measure co-production outcomes through a multi-dimensional performance management system. In sum, evidence suggests the following points for practice including the awareness that: • co-production is a complex and risky service delivery arrangement that requires specific tools for its activation, management and evaluation; • the co-production design stage must incorporate an analysis of the context and the antecedents, distinguishing between exogenous and manageable forces. These shape the patterns, quality and outcome of co-production and act in combination rather than in isolation; • performance measurement systems for co-production need to be designed from a multi-stakeholder perspective, including lay actors, regular providers and the community; • the satisfaction of partners with the collaborative process and their affective responses have to be monitored and managed during co-­ production, as this can affect their motivation and the final outcomes.



Appendices

Appendix 1: A Snapshot from the Review of Literature In this appendix, some basic information about the articles included in the 200

160

120

80

40

0 1978-1983 1984-1989 1990-1995 1996-2001 2002-2007 2008-2013 2014-2019 Paper using quantitative methods

Overall number of papers

Fig. A.1  The timeline overview of the papers dealing with coproduction

© The Author(s) 2020 D. Cepiku et al., The Co-production of Public Services, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60710-4

121

122 

APPENDICES

review is provided. As shown in Fig. A.1, interest in the management and evaluation of co-production was low till early 2000: 92 per cent of the selected articles were published in the past decade (2008- mid 2019) with an exponential growth in the past five years (2013–2018) (Fig. A.1). Figure A.1 also outlines that in the past five years there has been an increase in the use of quantitative methods, with, in particular, experimental design studies increased both in private and public-sector articles. Table A.1 reports the distribution of papers analysed according to the methodology applied and the sector (public or private) investigated. Public-sector coproduction articles are predominantly qualitative while the private-­ sector articles are mainly based on quantitative analyses (mostly related to experimental design). In terms of service areas, public-sector articles tend to primarily focus on healthcare, neighbourhood and environmental services, followed by child care, education and others. Most of the public-sector articles investigated co-production in Europe and North America, while the majority of private-sector studies originated in Asian countries. Table A.2 reports the most recurring publication outlets. Around half of the selected articles were published in public administration and policy journals, demonstrating the renewed interest of public-sector scholars in co-production. Approximately a quarter appeared in general management journals, including marketing journals, another quarter in specialized journals. This confirms that coproduction is relevant to several streams of research and disciplines. Table A.1  The distribution of papers in terms of methodology applied and sector Methodology Qualitative Case study Conceptual Literature review Other techniques Quantitative Experimental Other techniques Mixed Total

Both % 1

50%

1

50%

1 2

50% 100%

Private sector % 25 4 6 5 10 37 16 21 2 64

39% 6% 9% 8% 16% 58% 25% 33% 3% 100%

Public sector % 147 41 23 13 70 44 10 34 9 202

74% 21% 12% 7% 35% 22% 5% 17% 5% 100%

Total % 173 45 29 18 81 81 26 55 12 266

65% 17% 11% 7% 30% 30% 10% 21% 5% 100%

 APPENDICES 

Table A.2  The journals that hosted co-production articles Journals

#

General management journals Journal of Service Research Journal of Marketing Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services Journal of Service Management Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science British Journal of Management Journal of Consumer Behaviour Journal of Service Theory and Practice Management Decision Marketing Letters Service Industries Journal Other general management journals Public administration and policy journals Public Management Review Voluntas Public Administration Review International Journal of Public Administration American Review of Public Administration International Journal of Public Sector Management International Review of Administrative Sciences International Public Management Journal Policy and Society Public Administration Public Money & Management Administration & Society Journal of Public Administration and Theory Journal of Social Policy Social Policy and Society Australian Journal of Public Administration Policy Studies Journal Public Policy and Administration Social Policy & Administration Other public administration and policy journals Sectoral journals Urban Affairs Review Children and Society Environment and Urbanization Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice Other sectoral journals

71 5 4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 41 137 31 10 9 7 6 6 6 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 26 59 3 2 2 2 49

123

Australian Journal of Public Administration Administration & Society Public Management Review Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly International Public Management Journal Public Management Review Journal of Cleaner Production Journal of Consumer Behaviour Journal of Retailing International Journal of Public Administration Public Administration Journal of Marketing

2016

2002 2016 1987

2014

2018

2015

2007

2016

2003

Alford, J. Alford, John Anderson, J., Clary, B.

Andrews, Rhys; Ashworth, Rachel; Meier, Kenneth J. Andrews, Rhys; Brewer, Gene A. Annala, L., Sarin, A., Green, J.L. Aucouturier, Jean-Julien; Fujita, Marketa; Sumikura, Hiroko Auh, S., Bell, S.J., McLeod, C.S., Shih, E. Barbera, C., Sicilia, M., Steccolini, I. Bartenberger, M., SzeÅšciÅo, D. Bendapudi, N., Leone, R.P.

2016

2013

Land Use Policy

2018

Akaateba, M.A., Huang, H., Adumpo, E.A. Alford, J., Yates, S.

Journal

Year

Authors

Appendix 2

*

*

*

*

Private (*)

Context (3)

x

x

x

x

Antecedents (3)

Management (4)

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Outcomes (5)

124  APPENDICES

Journal of Social Policy

Voluntas American Journal of Criminal Justice Policy Studies Journal Urban Affairs Review Journal of Service Research

2015

2012

2014

2013

2009

Cassia, F., Magno, F.

1983 1984 2012

Brudney, J.L. Brudney, J.L. Buettgen, Marion; Schumann, Jan H.; Ates, Zelal Carey, P. International Journal of Quality and Service Sciences

Innovations in Education and Teaching International

Voluntas International Review of Administrative Sciences

*

*

2012 2016

2014

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Internet Research

2006

Blasco-Arcas, L., Hernandez-­Ortega, B., Jimenez-Martinez, J. Bovaird, T., Loeffler, E. Bovaird, T., Stoker, G., Jones, T., Loeffler, E., Pinilla, Roncancio M. Bovaird, T., Van Ryzin, G.G., Loeffler, E., Parrado, S. Brandsen, T., Helderman, J.-K. Brewer, R., Grabosky, P.

California Management Review *

2002

Private (*)

Bettencourt, L.A., Ostrom, A.L., Brown, S.W., Roundtree, R.I. Bifulco, Robert; Ladd, Helen F.

Journal

Year

Authors

Context (3)

x

x

x

x x

Antecedents (3)

x

x

x

x

Management (4)

(continued)

x x

x

x

Outcomes (5)

 APPENDICES 

125

Management Decision Review of Public Personnel Administration Journal of Retailing and * Consumer Services American Review of Public Administration Consumption Markets and * Culture European Journal of Operational Research Journal of Service Management *

2017 2015

2011

2017

2010

2013

Clark, B.Y., Guzman, T.S.

Cutcher, L.

De Witte, Kristof; Geys, Benny Dong, Beibei; Sivakumar, K. Echeverri, P., Salomonson, N. Echeverri, Per; Skalen, Per Edelenbos, J., Van Buuren, A., Roth, D., Winnubst, M. Ertimur, B., Venkatesh, A. Australasian Marketing Journal *

2010

2011 2017

Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services Marketing Theory Journal of Environmental Planning and Management

*

2017

2015

Service Industries Journal

2015

*

Public Management Review Public Management Review Regulation and Governance

2014 2017 2018

Private (*)

Cepiku, D., Giordano, F. Chaebo, G., Medeiros, J.J. Chang, L.Y.C., Zhong, L.Y., Grabosky, P.N. Chen, J.-S., Kerr, D., Tsang, S.-S., Sung, Y.C. Chen, C.C.V., Chen, C.J. Chen, Chin-Mei; Lee, Pei-Ching; Chou, Chien-Heng Cheung, M.F.Y., To, W.M.

Journal

Year

Authors

(continued)

x

Context (3) x

Antecedents (3)

x

x

x

x

x

Management (4)

x

x

x

x

x

x

Outcomes (5)

126  APPENDICES

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science International Journal of Public Sector Management Public Management Review Operations Management Research International Journal of Public Sector Management International Journal of Public Administration Public Management Review

2008

2016

Farooqi, S.A.

2014

Fledderus, J., Brandsen, T., Honingh, M. Fledderus, J., Brandsen, T., Honingh, M.E. Fledderus, Joost; Honingh, Marlies Flores, J., VasquezParraga, A.Z. Ford, R.C., Dickson, D.R. Frieling, M.A., Lindenberg, S.M., Stokman, F.N.

2012 2014

2015

2016

2015

2015

Fledderus, J.

Public Policy and Administration International Review of Administrative Sciences Journal of Consumer Marketing Business Horizons American Review of Public Administration

European Journal of Marketing

2016

Farr, M. 2016 Field, J.M., Xue, M., Hitt, 2012 L.M. Fledderus, J. 2015

Marketing Letters

2016

Esmark, C.L., Noble, S.M., Bell, J.E., Griffith, D.A. Essén Winterstorm Värlander Liljedal Etgar, M.

Journal

Year

Authors

*

*

*

*

*

Private (*)

Context (3)

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Antecedents (3)

x

x

x

x

x

x

Management (4)

(continued)

x x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

x

Outcomes (5)

 APPENDICES 

127

*

*

European Management Journal Journal of Marketing

Marketing Review Journal of African Economies Journal of Policy Analysis and Management Journal of Service Research

Journal of Business Research

2011

2008 2002 2016

2015

Hoyer, Wayne D.; Chandy, 2010 Rajesh; Dorotic, Matilda; Krafft, Manfred; Singh, Siddharth S. Hsieh, Jung-Kuei; Hsieh, 2015 Yi-Ching

Haumann, T., Güntürkün, P., Schons, L.M., Wieseke, J. Hilton, Toni Hoddinott, J. Hong, S.

2013

Policing and Society Problems and Perspectives in Management Journal of Service Research

1992 2008

Guo, L., Arnould, E.J., Gruen, T.W., Tang, C. Guo, L., Ng I.

Managing Service Quality

2010

*

*

*

Journal of Community Practice

2017

Private (*)

Frostick, C., Watts, P., Netuveli, G., Renton, A., Moore, D. Gebauer, Heiko; Johnson, Mikael; Enquist, Bo Grabosky, P.N. Guido, G., Peluso, A.M.

Journal

Year

Authors

(continued) Context (3)

Antecedents (3)

x

x

x

x

Management (4)

x

x

x

x

x

Outcomes (5)

128  APPENDICES

Journal of Consumer Behaviour Journal of Service Research Public Administration Review Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory Scandinavian Journal of Management International Journal of Public Administration Journal of Integrated Care

2012

2014

2013

2013

Kaehne, A., Beacham, A., Feather, J. Kershaw, A., Bridson, K., Parris, M.A. Kiser, L.L. Klerkx, L., Nettle, R. Koc, E., Ulukoy, M., Kilic, R., Yumusak, S., Bahar, R. Lierl, M. Ling-Yee Li, E., Liu, B.S.-C., Luk, S.T.K. Loeffler, E., Bovaird, T. International Journal of Public Administration

2016

2016 2017

1984 2013 2017

Australian Journal of Public Administration Urban Affairs Review Food Policy * Total Quality Management and * Business Excellence Journal of Theoretical Politics Journal of Global Marketing *

*

*

*

Private (*)

2018

2018

Jarvi, H., Kahkonen, A.K., 2018 Torvinen, H. Jo, S., Nabatchi, T. 2016

Project Management Journal

2013

Hsu, J.S., Hung, Y.W., Chen, Y.-H., Huang, H.-H. Hunt, David M.; Geiger-Oneto, Stephanie; Varca, Philip E. Jaakkola, Elina; Alexander, Matthew Jakobsen, M., Andersen, S.C. Jakobsen, Morten

Journal

Year

Authors

x

Context (3)

x

x

x

x

x

x

Antecedents (3)

x

x

x

x

Management (4)

(continued)

x

x

x

x

Outcomes (5)

 APPENDICES 

129

Munoz, S.-A., Farmer, J., 2014 Warburton, J., Hall, J. Nabatchi, T., Sancino, A., 2017 Sicilia, M. Nance, Earthea; Ortolano, 2007 Leonard

Mende, M., Scott, M.L., 2017 Bitner, M.J., Ostrom, A.L. Morton, M., Paice, E. 2016

*

x

x

x

2014

Meijer, A.J.

Antecedents (3)

Journal of Planning Education and Research

Voluntas International Journal of Public Sector Management American Review of Public Administration Journal of Public Policy and Marketing International Journal of Integrated Care Journal of Rural Studies

2012 2016

Context (3)

x

Public Management Review

2009

Private (*)

Public Administration Review

Social Policy and Society

2018

2005

International Journal of Public Sector Management Child Welfare

2018

Mangai, M.S., De Vries, M.S. Marks, M.B., Lawson, H.A. McCarry, M., Larkins, C., Berry, V., Radford, L., Stanley, N. McLoughlin, I., Maniatopoulos, G., Wilson, R., Martin, M. Meijer, A. Meijer, A.

Journal

Year

Authors

(continued)

x

x

x

x x

Management (4)

x

x

x

x

x

Outcomes (5)

130  APPENDICES

2017

2013

2014

Health Care Analysis Journal of Retailing and * Consumer Services BAR – Brazilian Administration * Review Planning Theory and Practice

2012 2017

Pestoff, V.

Public Management Review

2016

Policy Studies Journal Public Management Review Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics Public Management Review

British Journal of Management

2015

1978 2006 2009

British Journal of Management

2013

International Public Management Journal

Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory

2017

2013

Journal of Service Management *

Private (*)

2017

Neghina, C., Bloemer, J., van Birgelen, M., Caniels, M.C.J. O’Brien, D.T., Offenhuber, D., BaldwinPhilippi, J., Sands, M., Gordon, E. Osborne, S.P., Strokosch, K. Osborne, Stephen P.; Radnor, Zoe; Kinder, Tony; Vidal, Isabel Osborne, Stephen P.; Radnor, Zoe; Strokosch, Kirsty Owens, J., Cribb, A. Pacheco, N.A., Becker, L.C.B., Brei, V.A. Pacheco, N.A., Lunardo, R., dos Santos, C.P. Parker, G., Lynn. T., Wargent. M. Parrado. S., van Ryzin. G.G., Bovaird, T., Loeffler, E. Percy, S.L. Pestoff, V. Pestoff, V.

Journal

Year

Authors

x

x

Context (3)

x

x

x

x

Antecedents (3)

x

x

x

x

Management (4)

(continued)

x x

x

x

x

x

x

Outcomes (5)

 APPENDICES 

131

Public Administration Review

Voluntas Benchmarking-An International Journal Journal of the American Planning Association Journal of Service Theory and Practice Journal of International Marketing

2016

2016 2018

Sichtmann, C., Von 2011 Selasinsky M., Diamantopoulos, A. Sicilia, M., Guarini, E., 2016 Sancino, A., Andreani, M., Ruffini, R.

2017

International Review of Administrative Sciences

Voluntas Public Administration Review

2017 2017

2008

Urban Research and Practice Public Management Review

2017 2014

Shandas, Vivek; Messer, W. Barry Siahtiri, V.

Engineering Economics

2012

Petukiene, E., Tijunaitiene, R., Damkuviene, M. Pilo’, F. Radnor, Z., Osborne, S.P., Kinder, T., Mutton, J. RantamÃki, N.J. Riccucci, N.M., Van Ryzin, G.G. Riccucci, Norma M.; Van Ryzin, Gregg, G.; Li, Huafang Sancino, A. Sarmah, B., Rahman, Z.

Journal

Year

Authors

(continued)

*

*

*

Private (*)

x

Context (3)

x

x

x

x

Antecedents (3)

x

x

x

x

Management (4)

x

x

Outcomes (5)

132  APPENDICES

Marketing Letters Journal of Service Management *

Community Development Journal Telecommunications Policy International Social Work International Public Management Journal Journal of Rural and Community Development Journal of Marketing International Journal of Public Administration

2017

2016

2016

2011

2015

2012

2016

2015

2014

Journal of Service Research

2015

*

*

Administration and Society

2017

Private (*)

Sorrentino, M., Guglielmetti, C., Gilardi, S., Marsilio, M. Spanjol, J., Cui, A.S., Nakata, C., Sharp, L.K., Crawford, S.Y., Xiao, Y., Watson-Manheim, M.B. Stevens, J., Esmark, C.L., Noble, S.M., Lee, N.Y. Stokburger-Sauer, N.E., Scholl-Grissemann, U., Teichmann, K., Wetzels, M. Sudhipongpracha, T., Wongpredee, A. Szkuta, K., Pizzicannella, R., Osimo D. Thomas, T., Ott, J.S., Liese, H. Thomsen, M.K., Jakobsen, M. Thuesen, Annette Aagaard; Rasmussen, Hanna Barbara Troye, S.V., Supphellen, M. Tu, X.

Journal

Year

Authors

x

Context (3)

x

Antecedents (3)

x

x

x

x

x

Management (4)

(continued)

x

x

x

x

x

Outcomes (5)

 APPENDICES 

133

2015

2018

Tuurnas, S.

Væggemose, U., Ankersen, P.V., Aagaard, J., Burau, V. Van Damme, J., Caluwaerts, D., Brans, M. van Eijk, C. Van Eijk, C., Steen, T.

van Eijk, C., Steen, T., Verschuere, B. Vanleene, D., Voets, J., Verschuere, B. von Thiele Voorberg, W.H., Bekkers, V.J.J.M., Tummers, L.G. Voorberg, W., Bekkers, V., Timeus, K., Tonurist, P., Tummers, L. Walasek, L., Rakow, T., Matthews, W.J.

International Journal of Public Administration International Journal of Public Sector Management Health and Social Care in the Community International Journal of Public Administration Voluntas International Review of Administrative Sciences Local Government Studies

2016

Lex Localis Health Service Research Public Management Review Policy and Society

Journal of Behavioral Decision Making

2017

2016 2015

2017

2017

2017

2018 2016

2016

European Journal of Social Work

2015

Tuurnas, S.P., Stenvall, J., Rannisto, P.-H., Harisalo, R., Hakari, K. Tuurnas, S.

Journal

Year

Authors

(continued)

*

Private (*)

x

Context (3)

x

x

x x

Antecedents (3)

x

x

x

x

x

x

Management (4)

x

x

x

x

Outcomes (5)

134  APPENDICES

Folz, D.H. Bovaird, T. Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T., Pestoff, V.

van Eijk, C.J.A., Steen, T.P.S. Thomsen, M.K.

1991 2007 2012

2017

2014

Zambrano-Gutiérrez, J.C., 2017 Rutherford, A., Nicholson-Crotty, S. Zhang, Jie J.; Joglekar, 2016 Nitin Li, M.L., Hsu, C. 2017

American Review of Public Administration Public Administration Review Public Administration Review Voluntas

*

Journal of Hospitality Marketing & Management Public Management Review

* * *

*

IDS Bulletin Management Decision Service Industries Journal International Journal of Contemporary Hospitality Management Public Administration

2011 2017 2011 2018

*

Private (*)

Service Science

Journal of Architectural and Planning Research Public Management Review

2014

2016

Urban Affairs Review

1984

Williams, B.N., Kang, S.-C., Johnson, J. Workman, A. Wu, L.-W. Wu, Cedric Hsi-Jui Xu, H., Liu, Y.Q., Lyu, X.Y.

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science

2016

Wan, Echo Wen; Chan, Kimmy Wa; Chen, Rocky Peng Warren, R., Rosentraub, M.S., Harlow, K.S. Wilkie, S., Michialino, P.

Journal

Year

Authors

Context (3)

x

x

x

x

x

x

Antecedents (3)

x x

x

x

x

x

Management (4)

(continued)

x

x x x

x

Outcomes (5)

 Appendices 

135

Public Administration Review Journal of Islamic Marketing * Environment and Urbanization Journal of Asian and African Studies Business Process Management Journal International Public Management Journal

1983

2018 2018

2018

2018

Alzaydi, Z.M., Al-Hajla, A., Nguyen, B., Jayawardhena, C. Andersen, S.C., Nielsen, H.S., Thomsen, M.K.

Public Administration Review American Review of Public Administration

1984 2016

2018

2012

*

*

*

Voluntas Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice Journal of Marketing

2012 2018

2017

Public Money and Management Public Management Review

2017

Private (*)

Bovaird, T., Flemig, S., Loeffler, E., Osborne, S.P. Van Ryzin, G.G., Riccucci, N.M., Li, H. Pestoff, V. Lamph, G., Sampson, M., Smith, D., Williamson, G., Guyers, M. Golder, P.N., Mitra, D., Moorman, C. Levine, C.H. van den Bekerom, Petra; Torenvlied, Rene; Akkerman, Agnes Brudney, J.L., England, R.E. Abd Aziz, N. Adams, E.A., Boateng, G.O. Adegun, O.B.

Journal

Year

Authors

(continued) Context (3)

x

x

x

x

Antecedents (3)

x

Management (4)

x

x

x

x

x

Outcomes (5)

136  Appendices

Production Planning and Control Administration & Society International Review of Administrative Sciences Water Alternatives

2018 2018 2018 2018 2018

2018

2018

Baldwin, K. Brown, P.R., Head, B.W. Burns, S. Bussu, S., Galanti, M.T. Chen, C.Y.

Chien, S.-H., Wu, J.-J., Huang, C.-Y. Dasgupta, M.

2018 2018 2018

2018

Hand, L.C. 2018 Honingh, M., Bondarouk, 2018 E., Brandsen, T. Hutchings, P. 2018

Dury, S. Farr, M. Fisher, P., Balfour, B., Moss, S. Gamble, J.R.

2018

2018

Journal of Social Policy Production and Operations Management International Journal of Urban Sustainable Development International Journal of Public Sector Management Comparative Political Studies Public Administration Children and Society Policy and Society Journal of Service Theory and Practice Asia Pacific Management Review International Journal of Indian Culture and Business Management European Journal of Ageing Critical Social Policy British Journal of Social Work

2018 2018

Andreassen, T.A. Andritsos, D.A., Tang, C.S. Ardill, N., Lemes, de Oliveira, F. Aschhoff, N, Vogel, R.

Journal

Year

Authors

*

*

*

*

*

Private (*)

Context (3)

Antecedents (3)

x

Management (4)

(continued)

x

Outcomes (5)

 Appendices 

137

Area Public Management Review International Social Security Review Public Administration

Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science Dementia

Voluntas

2018

2018

2018

2018

2018

2018

Mayrhofer, A.M., Mathie, E., McKeown, J., Goodman, C., Irvine, L., Hall, N., Walker, M. McLennan, B.J.

International Journal of Cultural Policy Public Management Review

2018

2018

2018

Informatics

2018

Kayser, L., Nøhr, C., Bertelsen, P., Botin, L., Villumsen, S., Showell, C., Turner, P. Kershaw, A., Bridson, K., Parris, M.A. Laitinen, I., Kinder, T., Stenvall, J. Leyshon, C., Leyshon, M., Jeffries, J. Liao, Y.G., Schachter, H.L. Lindsay, C., Pearson, S., Batty, E., Cullen, A.M., Eadson, W. Lindsay, C., Pearson, S., Batty, E., Cullen, A.M., Eadson, W. Malshe, A., Friend, S.B.

Journal

Year

Authors

(continued)

*

Private (*)

Context (3)

x

Antecedents (3)

Management (4)

Outcomes (5)

138  Appendices

Policy and Politics Recherche Et Applications En Marketing-English Edition Policy Futures in Education International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing

Policy and Society Service Business Journal of Health Organization and Management Journal of Asian Public Policy Public Administration Review Voluntas Public Administration Review

2018

2018

2018

2018

2018 2018

2018

2018

2018

Sudhipongpracha, T. Uzochukwu, K., Thomas, J.C. Vanleene, D., Voets, J., Verschuere, B. Voorberg, W., Jilke, S., Tummers, L., Bekkers, V.

2018 2018

2018

Journal of Services Marketing

2018

Mukherjee, I., Mukherjee, N. Nagel, D.M., Cronin Jr, J.J., Utecht, R.L. Nederhand, J., Van Meerkerk, I. Nicod, L., Llosa, S.

Nuamcharoen, S., Dhirathiti, N.S. Palumbo, R., Vezzosi, S., Picciolli, P., Landini, A., Annarumma, C., Manna, R. Palumbo, R., Manna, R. Park, C., Lee, H., Jun, J., Lee, T. Pors, A.S.

Journal of Criminological Research, Policy and Practice Policy and Society

2018

Morris, J., Knight, V.

Journal

Year

Authors

*

*

*

Private (*)

Context (3)

x

Antecedents (3)

Management (4)

(continued)

Outcomes (5)

 Appendices 

139

Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics British Journal of Criminology Social Policy and Society Journal of Mental Health Training, Education and Practice Public Management Review Public Management Review Journal of Social Policy Public Policy and Administration European Journal of Information Systems Online Information Review Public Management Review Public Management Review

2019

2019

2019 2019

2019 2019 2019

2019

2019 2019 2019 2019

2019 2019

Journal of Marketing Management Feminist Economics Sociology of Health & Illness

2018

Zolfagharian, M., Felix, R., Braun, J. Austen, S., Jefferson, T. Baim-Lance, A., Tietz, D., Lever, H., Swart, M., Agins, B. Bosco, A., Schneider, J., Coleston-Shields, D.M., Orrell, M. Brunton-Smith, I., Bullock, K. Burgess, G., Durrant, D. Chiocchi, J., Lamph, G., Slevin, P., Fisher-Smith, D., Sampson, M. Dhirathiti, N.S. Eriksson, E.M. Flemig, S.S., Osborne, S. Go Jefferies, J., Bishop, S., Hibbert, S. Grace, A., Gleasure, R., Finnegan, P., Butler, T. Jarke, J. Jaspers, S., Steen, T. Jo, S., Nabatchi, T.

Journal

Year

Authors

(continued)

*

*

Private (*)

Context (3)

Antecedents (3)

Management (4)

x

Outcomes (5)

140  Appendices

Children and Society

Social Policy & Administration Public Management Review Public Management Review Industrial Marketing Management Public Administration and Development Cogent Business & Management Studies in Conflict and Terrorism Society & Natural Resources Technological Forecasting and Social Change

2019

2019 2019 2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

2019

Social Policy and Society

2019

Ngo, H.V., Edelenbos, J., Gianoli, A. Opata, C.N., Xiao, W., Nusenu, A.A., Tetteh, S., Opata, E.S. Parker, D., Pearce, J.M., Lindekilde, L., Rogers, M.B. Stepenuck, K.F., Genskow, K.D. Tan, W.-L., Zuckermann, G.

Environment and Urbanization

2019

Li, B., Hu, B., Liu, T., Fang, L. Lindsay, C., Pearson, S., Batty, E., Cullen, A.M., Eadson, W. Martikke, S., Cumbers, H., Cox, N., Webb, L., Gedzielewski, E., Duale, M. McMullin, C. Mok, J.Y. Musso, J.A., Young, M.M., Thom, M. Mustak, M.

Journal

Year

Authors

*

*

Private (*)

Context (3)

Antecedents (3)

x

Management (4)

(continued)

x

Outcomes (5)

 Appendices 

141

International Game Theory Review American Review of Public Administration International Review of Administrative Sciences Marketing Intelligence & Planning Social Policy & Administration Public Money & Management Public Money & Management Public Money & Management Public Money & Management Social Policy and Society American Review of Public Administration Journal of Social Policy Public Management Review

2019

2019 2019 2019

2019 2019 2019 2019

2019 2019

2019

2019

2019

Administration & Society

2019

Torfing, J., Sorensen, E., Roiseland, A. Vallée, T., Baudry, G., Guillotreau, P. van Eijk, C., Steen, T., Torenvlied, R. Vanleene, D., Voets, J., Verschuere, B. Wajid, A., Raziq, M.M., Malik, O.F., Malik, S.A., Khurshid, N. Weaver, B. Loeffler, E., Bovaird, T. Sicilia, M., Sancino, A., Nabatchi, T., Guarini, E. Whicher, A., Crick, T. Yang, C., Northcott, D. Burgess, G., Durrant, D. van Eijk, C., Steen, T., Torenvlied, R. Flemig, S.S., Osborne, S. Jo, S., Nabatchi, T.

Journal

Year

Authors

(continued)

*

*

Private (*)

Context (3)

Antecedents (3) x

Management (4)

x

Outcomes (5)

142  Appendices

Journal of Service Marketing Public Administration Review

2019

2016

Kang, S., Van Ryzin, G.G. Lember, V., Brandsen, T., Tõnurist, P. Mazzei, M., Teasdale, S., Calò, F., Roy, M.J. Park, S.E.

Public Management Review

2019

Public Management Review Public Management Review

2019

2019

2019 2019

Cogent Business & Management Public Management Review Public Management Review

2019

2019

Public Management Review

2019

Alonso, J.M., Andrews, R., Clifton, J., Diaz-Fuentes, D. Best, B., Moffet, S., McAdam, R. Blinda, K., Schnittka, O., Sattler, H., Gräve, J.-F Brandsen, T., Honigng, M. Bucci, S., Schwannauer, M., Berry, N. Gassner, D., Gofen, A.

Journal

Year

Authors

*

Private (*)

Context (3)

Antecedents (3)

x

x

Management (4)

x

Outcomes (5)

 Appendices 

143

Index

A Acceptance, 22, 35, 82, 97, 99, 114, 116 Accountability, 5, 16, 53, 67–68, 91, 97, 98, 115, 118 Activation of co-production, 12, 17, 21–40, 117 Antecedents, 5, 6, 15–17, 21–40, 53, 69, 87, 98, 114, 115, 117–119 Awareness, 4, 5, 35, 82, 87, 94, 119 B Benefits, 2, 17, 28, 30, 37, 63, 85, 88, 89, 91, 94–97, 102, 103, 116–118 C Collaborative governance, 5, 13, 15, 16, 53, 59, 69, 114 Communication, 16, 32, 38, 52, 56, 58–60, 63, 67, 69, 85, 115, 118 Community, societal impact, 96, 98 Continuity, duration, 22, 36, 114

Control, 4, 24, 30, 35, 52, 63, 64, 66, 83, 84, 99, 116 Co-produced service, 16, 22, 36–39, 67, 85, 87, 90, 94, 114, 115 Co-production definition, 1–4 Co-production framework, framework, 13, 117 Co-production management, 12, 16, 17, 36, 43, 52–55, 69, 89, 96, 114, 115, 117, 118 Cost, 56, 67, 82, 84, 88–92, 95, 97, 98, 116 D Demographic, socio-economic caracteristics, factors, 22, 24, 114 E Effectiveness, 5, 33, 54, 56, 59, 65, 69, 82, 89, 92–93, 98 Efficiency, 5, 54, 55, 65, 67, 81, 82, 86, 89–92, 99, 116

© The Author(s) 2020 D. Cepiku et al., The Co-production of Public Services, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60710-4

145

146 

INDEX

Empowerment, 5, 63, 64, 82, 87, 96 Equity, 33, 34, 56, 67, 82, 84, 96–99, 116 Evaluation, 12, 14, 16, 54, 59, 62, 67, 68, 81–103, 114, 119, 122 Externalities, 82, 89 F Failure, 12, 16, 52, 58, 69, 83–86, 90, 92, 98, 115 G General context, 5, 6, 15–17, 21–40, 53, 69, 114, 115, 117, 118 I ICT, 60, 91 Impact, 26, 31n4, 37, 53–56, 60, 82, 84, 85, 88, 89, 92–99, 116–118 Institutional design, institutional arrangements, 16, 53, 55–58, 69, 115, 118 Intensity, 53, 55, 58, 60, 69, 84, 85, 99, 115, 116 L Lay actor, 2, 3, 5, 15–17, 21–37, 39, 52–64, 67, 69, 82–92, 94, 96–99, 114–119 Leadership, 16, 32, 53, 54, 62, 63, 65–67, 69, 115, 118 Learning, 4, 33, 34, 38, 55, 60, 62, 65, 82, 88, 96

M Measurement, 17, 69, 99, 116, 118, 119 Motivation, 28–30, 53, 54, 61–63, 88, 119 Motivational factors, 22, 24, 27–30, 114 O Outcome, 3, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15–17, 23, 28, 29, 35, 39, 52–55, 59, 62, 63, 65–69, 81–97, 99–102, 115–119 P Performance, 17, 54, 62, 63, 67–69, 91, 93, 99, 116, 118, 119 Performance management, 16, 31, 67, 68, 92, 115, 119 Planning, 3, 16, 35, 53, 59, 69, 90, 91, 115 Private, 5, 6, 13–15, 28, 53, 54, 57, 58, 61, 83, 88–90, 92, 99, 114–117, 122 Productivity, 82, 89, 90, 93 Professional, 2–4, 12, 16, 34, 35, 53–55, 57, 59–61, 63–69, 90, 97, 115, 116, 118 Public management, 4, 83 Public service, 2–6, 12, 22–24, 32, 34, 61, 65, 67, 68, 82, 86, 88, 90, 92–94, 96–99, 116, 118 Q Quality, 3, 4, 27, 33, 38, 52, 62, 69, 82–86, 90, 92, 96, 97, 99, 116, 119 Quality of collaboration, 13, 52, 69, 115

 INDEX 

R Regular service provider, 17, 35, 82, 89–95, 99, 116 Research methods, 13–15 Resource availability, 22, 24, 31–34, 39, 114 Rules, 23, 55, 56, 58, 93, 115 S Satisfaction, 5, 29, 54–56, 58, 60, 62, 82–87, 92, 93, 95, 99, 115, 116, 119 Self-efficacy, 30–32, 31n4, 58, 61, 85, 87–89 Service delivery channels, 55, 88, 115 Service salience, 22, 37, 114 Size and scope, 53, 55, 58, 115 Socialisation, identity, 61, 116 Society, 5, 29, 37, 65, 82, 95–97 Socio-psychological factors, 30–32 Staff, 55, 91

T Training, 53, 54, 57, 61–65, 82, 87, 88, 116 Trust, 115, 118, 17, 25, 25n1, 30, 31, 4, 58, 82, 83, 94, 95, 99 U Uncertainty, 56, 63, 82, 86, 93 V Value, 1, 5, 13, 23, 28, 36, 52, 53, 55, 58–60, 62, 65–68, 82, 84–87, 90–92, 95–99, 116–118 W Workforce, 25n1, 82

147