Working PaperPDF Available

Co-Creating Cities. Defining co-´creation as a means of citizen engagement

Authors:
COCREATING CITIES
DEFINING COCREATION AS A MEANS
OF CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT
APPLYING BUSINESS PRACTICE TO THE PUBLIC SECTOR
Leading
Cities
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank the support and intellectual contributions
within each of the following participating cities in Leading Cities:
Anna Garcia Hom, Ramon Moles, Joaquin Rodriguez Alvarez, and
Carles Agusti in Barcelona; Barry Bluestone, Joan Fitzgerald, Ian
Sample and Daniel Spiess in Boston; Jamie Cudden and Brendan
Williams in Dublin; Joerg Knieling, Claire Duvernet, and Merle
Panneke in Hamburg; Paulo Carvalho and Luis Moniz in Lisbon;
Vincent Michelot and Hubert Julien Laferriere in Lyon; Moura
Quayle and John Tylee in Vancouver; and Ian Paul Otero and Slavi
Gonzalez in Zapopan.
We also wish to thank the Northeastern University Fall 2012 Master
of Urban and Regional Policy Practicum class: John Ferrante,
Lindsay Morgia, Nathan Peyton, and Po-Yu for background research
and Joshua Hurwitz for additional research assistance.
thank you
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction......................................................................................................................................................................................
Background........................................................................................................................................................................................
Understanding Co-Creation................................................................................................................................................
Co-Creation Dened..................................................................................................................................................................
Co-Creation or Public Participation.............................................................................................................................
The Case for Co-Creation.......................................................................................................................................................
Risks of Co-Creation...................................................................................................................................................................
Conclusion..........................................................................................................................................................................................
References..........................................................................................................................................................................................
1
1
2
3
4
5
7
7
8
2
1
4
5
6
7
8
9
3
INTRODUCTION
People and their cities are engaging in new ways. In some cities, anyone with a smart phone can report
grati or a pothole directly to the right city department. Some can now vote via the internet on how a city
should spend its money. Others can use their computers to volunteer to shovel snow around re hydrants.
Still others participate in change labs that elicit their engagement from problem denition right through to
nding solutions.
All of this activity is part of a process called co-creation. Originally conceived as a business strategy for
identifying new forms of customer engagement, city governments now benet greatly from co-creating
- sharing, combining, and maximizing opportunity – at a time when cities are asked to do more with
dwindling resources.
This report presents a look at the world of co-creation for policy makers, local ocials, citizens, businesses,
and other city stakeholders. We have researched the following questions in eight participating cities
(Barcelona, Boston, Dublin, Hamburg, Lisbon, Lyon, Vancouver and Zapopan):
1. What is the current understanding of co-creation?
2. What is the scope of co-creative activities?
3. How can co-creative processes be utilized eectively in the public sector?
This report addresses the need to clearly dene co-creation. We look at the details, advantages, and
challenges of co-creation between city government and citizens, particularly with an eye to creating a more
sustainable (economy, equity, and environment) city. We begin with a look at why government leaders
should be encouraging more citizen engagement and how co-creation is dierent from, and potentially
more benecial to, traditional involvement methods. We then create a typology of co-creation methods
and examine the wide range of co-creation techniques – some, but not all, involving new technology. The
spectrum of techniques looks at smart phone applications, website services providing city governments
with feedback from citizens on important issues, and Urban Change Labs which pair citizens, academia, and
city government to brainstorm on solving neighborhood issues.
1
1
2
BACKGROUND
The modern concept of co-creation emerged from the business world in the 1990’s as a new form of
engagement with customers, one where they would
participate
in the production of the very products
they would consume and, in turn, co-create value
1
. All participants in the co-creative process ostensibly can
derive value from the process. Empowered customers were predicted to be the main source of innovative
ideas in the future2.
Co-creation, as it began in business, involves active, bilateral (or multi-lateral) relations with the rms which
had previously been simply suppliers. Similarly the relationship between government and citizens has
historically been that of supplier and consumer. Generally, co-creation in the public sector realm has been
conceived as “creating new solutions, with people, not for them”3. Dork and Monteyne (2011) conceptualize
citizen engagement in computer science terms; for them open data becomes ‘deciphering the urban code
and co-creation becomes ‘hacking’. As they explain, “instead of creating a new urban operating system from
the ground up, activists create prototypes of change and spread them like computer viruses throughout the
city and around the world.4
Co-creation moves the balance of power. Government, traditionally in a role of inviting the public in for
comments on pre-determined programs, functions in a more iterative decision making process. Part of
this hierarchy-attening involves a signicant degree of trust and transparency between citizens and
government ocials.
3
2
UNDERSTANDING COCREATION
The concept of co-creation has slowly trickled into the public sector’s discourse and the reasons for engaging
the public in these new ways vary. Opportunities for co-creation arise fundamentally from the need to
change, whether it is service delivery technologies, communications, or even the patterning of service
delivery,5 but traditionally governments are risk-averse and change-resistant6. Co-creation has also evolved
because of the nature of the very complex challenges that now face cities – challenges that require an “all
hands on deck” approach from problem identication through resolution. Some cities such as Barcelona have
historically applied co-creation techniques while others have a long history of functional separation between
public administration, academia, the private sector and the pubic. Still others, such as Hamburg see co-
creation as an emerging concept of applied policy.
The Catalan tradition of “Associacionisme,” for example, greatly informs and inuences the role of citizens in
the decision making process in Barcelona. Neighborhood associations, one of many types of organizations
that emerged from the Associacionisme movement in the 19th century, were traditionally formed by
citizens looking for solutions and change and subsequently became one of the most important methods of
channeling citizen participation into active involvement in policy decision-making in all phases: diagnostic,
design, implementation, and evaluation. However, as neighborhood association memberships have fallen,
Barcelona ocials and citizens increasingly use co-creation methods to supplement the associations’
involvement and integrate more stakeholders and citizens into the policy making process. Co-creation
techniques in Barcelona, therefore, are viewed by many as a tool for increasing social capital. For example,
the IRIS Projecti (Incidencias, Recalamaciones y Sugerencias), a multi-channel platform of city-related issues
management, embodies one the rst attempts to improve co-creation in Barcelona. It allows citizens to
communicate with the City Council by various means (mostly by telephone), it creates a database of “city
problems”, fostering citizens’ civil actions. From this input, City Hall has developed many projects to foster co-
creation thanks to the new technologies like Arreglamicalle, or Pla Buits (see Pla Buits example).
Some nations and cities have long histories of functional separation between government, the private
sector and academia. Particularly in social sciences and public aairs a stigma still exists against direct
collaboration with the private sector for either ideological reasons or because of past abuses from what the
French call “pantouage.” Pantouage, what economists describe as a “revolving door, describes the practice
of public servants leaving to take a position at a private company within the same eld. Generally, when local
government needs expertise to implement a project, it turns to its own personnel and/or departments or to
consulting rms, which are often satellites of municipal or regional government. It is rare for a municipality or
a regional council to turn to an academic institution for an experts’ opinion because of an existing prejudice
that the academic approach is too theoretical. However, certain co-creation projects at the city level -- in
Lyon, for example -- show that this silo mentality may be changing.
i IRIS http://www.bcn.cat/iris/eng/index.html?3,0 (Last access 21/02/2012)
“Pla buits” or “Empty Space Plan” which oers 20 sites for temporary use,
two per district, to non-prot organizations that aim to involve civil society
in determining how these vacant sites should be reclaimed by the city.
Since the start, almost 30 neighborhood associations, foundations, and
non-prot societies sent 32 proposals to manage the empty spaces. The
most popular ideas to use the spaces were urban gardens, parks and sport-
related or art-related activities. An evaluation of the Pla Buits project is
pending.
EXAMPLE: PLA BUITS
In Germany the debate about the role of citizens and new planning structures is ongoing, but is seldom
referred to explicitly as “co-creation.” The word “Mitgestaltung” for instance (literally co-design or co-creation)
is often used in that regard (Heidi, 2008; Jungman, 2012; Albers, 2013). Whether or not specically labeled
as such, the concepts of co-creation are being applied and experimented with in Hamburg today. (See Next
Hamburg example)
The various interpretations and applications of co-creation, as evidenced by the examples above,
demonstrate that no common understanding of co-creation currently exists. The purpose of the this report is
to develop a comprehensive denition of co-creation as it applies to the public sector.
3
4
COCREATION DEFINED
The term “co-creation” elicits dierent ideas from dierent people. Scholars, practitioners, and articles
reference the term but with dierent criteria for what actually constitutes co-creation initiatives and
techniques. Some policy makers, for instance, would not consider a technique “co-creative” if it did not
meet all of the nine characteristics below; others consider a smart phone app to be co-creative. We
look at techniques that embody the spirit of city-citizen engagement in new ways and with promising
improvements for the future.
We dene co-creation as
the active ow of information and ideas among ve sectors of society: government,
academia, business, non-prots and citizens - the Quintuple Helix - which allows for participation,
engagement, and empowerment in, developing policy, creating programs, improving services, and tackling
systemic change with each dimension of society represented from the beginning.
Next Hamburg
is a community of citizens initiated in 2009 by urban
planning and communications professionals, which aims to nd innovative
and creative ideas for urban development in Hamburg. This platform allows
citizens to discuss new ideas and future visions for their city. The dialogue
takes place either on-line or during workshops organized twice a year. A
book with the top-rated suggestions was published in October 2012. The
next step is to select among all the projects which could be completed, and
to nd a way to nance and implement them, in collaboration with the City
of Hamburg.
EXAMPLE: NEXT HAMBURG
5
4
COCREATION OR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Is co-creation just another name for public participation? Even with the advent of new technologies,
does co-creation simply represent public involvement in decisions made by government leaders? Public
participation is an essential component of planning and policy making processes. For government leaders,
agencies and developers, public participation allows them to collect and provide information about
community needs, identify attitudes and opinions, generate new ideas, allow for smoother implementation,
and build constituency support. However, for citizens and community organizations, co-creation can oer
opportunities to gain representation and be heard, exercise political rights and inuence policy decisions.
Co-creation fundamentally diers from public participation in a variety of ways. Co-creation techniques
possess the potential for overcoming the limitations of time and geography and may allow a signicant leap
in the scale and inuence of public involvement. While technology has, without doubt, broadened the ability
of citizens to co-create, it is not a requirement. A low-tech approach is often missing from the literature on
co-creation, which tends to focus on apps and web-based tools. Additionally, co-creative techniques view
people as proactive citizens, rather than as consumers of services, focused primarily on culture change, rather
than on short term outcomes, issues, or victories; and include a cross-section of entire communities, rather
than parts of them12. Rather than ask people to “plug into” existing pre-determined programs, initiatives,
or campaigns, citizen-centered and co-creative approaches help people form and promote their own
decisions, create new stakeholder maps, build capacities for self-government, and develop open-ended civic
processes.13
Co-creative processes have the following characteristics. They are:
Systemic: extends across the entire value-chain, “from generation, selection, incubation, and
eventually, even to marketing the new product or service”7.
Innovative and Productive: intended to generate new products and models of service delivery.
Collaborative: transforms citizens from ‘passive audiences’ to ‘active players.’ In this sense, the
relationship can be conceived of as a partnership.
Diverse: involves many stakeholders and includes such actors as non-governmental organizations/
civil society, business, and academics8.
Hierarchy-attening: the distinction between consumers and producers, users and designers,
bureaucrats and citizens is blurred or transcended9. Co-creation shares power between government
and citizens and other stakeholders rather than traditional structured or pre-determined programs,
initiatives, projects, or campaigns into which people are asked to “plug in” and participate10.
Bi- or multi-directional: Information and ideas ow among stakeholders. The process is neither top-
down nor bottom-up. All stakeholders learn and gain value from co-creative processes and outcomes.
Repeated and intense: The frequency, duration and volume of information exchanged in
interactions between stakeholders is greatly increased using co-creative techniques.
Mutually benecial: a learning process, in which stakeholders learn from one another and
participants assist others in a hope of improving their community in the long-term.
Trusted and Transparent: Trust is a key component of public participation and co-creation. Trust
comprises an important criterion for government – a trusted central authority allows open and equal
opportunity of participation11.
Co-creation may also be heavily informed by the advent of new technologies. To the extent that co-creation
is shaped by technology, ve foundational technologies will inuence how it plays out in the immediate
future: broadband connectivity, public interfaces, smart personal devices, cloud computing, and open data
infrastructures (Townsend et al 2012). The purpose of these technology advances in relation to citizen and
stakeholder engagement will shape the extent to which they aect co-creation technique.
True co-creation, represented by all of the characteristics above, is not planned, structured, or driven by
outside experts, professionals, organizations, or those external to the community, nor does it attempt to
inspire, persuade, or manipulate people to adopt a particular view or position on an issue or agenda.
5
6
THE CASE FOR COCREATION
Cities and citizens engage in co-creation for many reasons:
1. Public input and equality
2. Citizen empowerment
3. A more responsive government
4. Increasing citizen awareness
5. Increasing eciency and eectiveness
6. Cost savings
7. Risk management
8. Value creation through innovation
Consistent with the intent of many other participation initiatives, co-creation has the ability to increase
public input and equity into policy decision-making and build consensus. However, the inclusive nature
of co-creation specically provides the public, private, non-prot and academic sectors as well as citizens
themselves the opportunity to serve as equal stakeholders. What further distinguishes co-creation from
other participation initiatives is the involvement of these stakeholders at the very beginning of the decision
making process beginning with the identication of the problem.
Citizen empowerment through co-creation can happen in several ways. For communities and citizen
organizations, co-creation can oer opportunities to gain representation and be heard, exercise political
rights and inuence policy decisions. Citizens can become more empowered, breaking cycles of
dependence14. Communities, through co-creation, may be able to create a new consensus based on local
knowledge. Social capital can also increase through participation. Social capital improves the quality of
social institutions, helps communities function more eectively, and creates a direct and positive eect on
economic development. Improved social capital also balances the inequities that exist between races and
classes. Additionally, participation can change institutions where privilege has embedded itself in societal
norms, roles and organizations.
Some co-creation arrangements have evolved in response to declines in governance capacity. Co-creation
can serve to ll voids when public administrations are unable to eectively cope with public needs. Critics
may argue this is a deliberate transfer of responsibilities and accountability and highlight the risk of
government becoming intentionally less responsive to public demands. However, co-creation stakeholders
are shown to learn from one another15, and as a result, government should become more responsive to
citizen needs16. Without community involvement, standardized solutions (those that are developed outside
the community) have sometimes been found to be notoriously unreliable because they reduce the reliance
on local knowledge and skill and limit the exibility of people at the front lines to solve the problems they
encounter17.
Policy makers must concern themselves with a balance between promoting progress and setting
expectations. Allaying fears that co-creation creates unrealistic expectations in participants, proponents
assert that citizens become more aware of and satised with the functioning of their local governments18.
Opening a process to include input and participation at a fundamental level increases the exposure of
stakeholders in both the opportunities and challenges of instituting change. While this may create pressure
on institutions to change, it also serves to show how dicult change can be and provides an opportunity for
challenges to be confronted by a larger and more diverse set of problem solvers.
6
Co-creation increases the eciency and eectiveness of city government. While there are numerous examples
of co-creation techniques resulting in positive change, there is a persistent question as to whether such an
expansively inclusive process is an ecient way to operate. In many cases, co-creation is serving to tap into
previously underutilized resources such as citizens themselves moving about the streets with smart phones.
In Boston for example,
Street Bump
, a project of the Boston Mayor’s Oce of New Urban Mechanics, helps
residents improve their neighborhood streets. As users drive, the mobile app reports data when bumps are
encountered. That data provides the City with real-time information it uses to x problems and plan long term
investments. Digital co-creation tools have the power to quantitatively improve city government by facilitating
real-time data collection, categorization, and redistribution of information. Co-creation also provides another
means by which government can gain “social license” (i.e. gain legitimacy, credibility, and trust by community
stakeholders) to enact policy.
The main reason that governments initiate these processes is to lower costs and manage risks19. For
governments the main challenge is a common one: governments are told to watch and restrict their public
expenses but are traditionally highly risk averse. Consequently, they hardly take any risk to implement services
that could fail and thus innovation in the public sector is stymied. This is especially true of services that are
not explicitly requested by citizens. Most governments do not have the right internal mechanisms to allow for
the testing of new services and ideas. They either don’t allow any innovative project to be implemented, or
don’t provide proper incentives (usually by punishing all failures), or they allow failures to continue endlessly.
For public innovation to succeed, as in private business, failures should be acknowledged rapidly, and then
changed based on feedback from end users to be tried again – and again20. Initiation of new services is an
area where co-creation can assist. Because co-creation inherently requires the participation of stakeholders
throughout the process of problem identication and solution implementation, governments can be more
condent in assuming risks along the way.
To lower costs, crowd-sourcing, for instance, can be used as an alternative to expensive outsourcing, such as
hiring consultants. In this way, co-creation can reduce the costs of service provision, by as much as 60 percent
in some cases21. Governments increasingly look to alternative measures of value beyond narrow cost-benets22,
and co-creation provides considerable intangible benets, such as value through innovation. Dublin, for
instance, shows how using low-tech or no-tech co-creation techniques can spur innovation and deliver not
only costs savings, but intellectual property and potential new revenue streams as well. The Studio project in
Dublin is a team of seven people from dierent areas of Dublin City Council whose aim is to grow the Council’s
capacity to innovate and improve the quality of city services by bringing people together to test new ideas
and prototype new ways of working. The Studio uses approaches such as street conversations to consult with
the public about dierent topics. (See The Studio Example) In the past two years, The Studio has participated
in several projects including one for the Grafton Street Quarter to nd out from a wide range of users what
changes they would like to see in the area and their opinion about how to make it a better place to live, trade
and use. The information coming out of the research will inform the work of the design team for the Quarter.
The Studio has successfully engaged employees and other stakeholders of
the Dublin City Government to come up with new ways of achieving the
desired results of their work in a more ecient way. In one such example, a
public employee who led a team of laborers to maintain clear gutters and
sewers, developed a new design for the city’s storm drains that required less
time to clean and thus allowed workers to more eciently carry out their
duties. The city has since patented the product, along with several others.
This example highlights multiple levels of value creation - from eciency to
commercial patenting.
EXAMPLE: THE STUDIO
7
7
RISKS OF COCREATION?
Although there is the tantalizing promise of widespread civic engagement through co-creation, citizens vary
considerably in terms of education, time, and motivation to participate in city government23. Caution must be
used in creating systems that are accessible only to some residents. It is critical to provide opportunities for
all citizens to engage equally.
Co-creation tools such as the issue-oriented website MindMixer are only as good as their perceived
credibility. Unlike a public meeting, neither city ocials and sta nor other residents can trust each other’s
identities and credibility. Further, one cannot distinguish between citizen and corporate interests24. And
although the potential for expansion of participation is great, MindMixer only advantages those who are
more tech-savvy and those with access to the tool to promote their ideas.
A signicant amount of coverage on co-creation focuses on technology-enabled tools – smart phone
apps, web-based forums, etc. – yet a majority of the world’s population remains without access to such
technologies. Smart phone usage, for example, is not nearly as ubiquitous as we may believe. Of the 5 billion
mobile phones in the world, only a little over one billion are smart phones. If decision-makers are now paying
attention to the volumes of data being produced by the users of these new technologies, are the voices of
other city residents still being heard and responded to? Or, are these other residents’ voices being drowned-
out in a sea of data? Smart phone usage may be rising rapidly but ocials must remain vigilant that co-
creation goes beyond technology and truly embraces all stakeholders.
A core principle of co-creation is that an “extended peer community” consisting of all those aected by an
issue will bring local knowledge to a project that would normally elude ocials25. To the extent this is true,
participation, whether through co-creation or other mechanisms, may also lower the quality of government
actions and the policy results. Increasing the amount of anonymous input could blur the line between “good
participation” driven by civic interest and “bad participation” driven by NIMBYism and self-interest, a line that
is inherently blurry to start with26. An eective manager of the co-creative process must ensure participant
engagement, manage risks, reduce complexity without imposing constraints, establish trust, and above all,
continue to produce value for all participants27.
CONCLUSION
One can see the potential of co-creation as a method of engaging citizens and demanding transparency
and collaboration from government. While co-creation has existed for some time in the private sector by
companies looking to capitalize on the value of their customer’s feedback, it is increasingly recognized as an
eective tool for governments as well. In many ways, the core principals of co-creation have been around for
a long time - holding public meetings on projects and elected ocials soliciting public feedback. But as the
methodology of co-creation has evolved, this report seeks to establish some common “ground rules” for co-
creation, including what we feel is the rst true denition of the term as it is applied to the public sector.
The next phase of this research will focus on specic co-creation initiatives around the world, developing an
index of successful methods and techniques for policy makers in order to increase public participation and
enlist the resources within their communities to solve public policy problems and capitalize on opportunities.
8
8
REFERENCES
1. Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68,
1-17.
2. (The Economist Intelligence Unit, 2008).
3. Bason, C. (2010). Leading public sector innovation. Bristol. Policy Press.
4. Marian Dörk and David Monteyne. Urban Co-Creation: Envisioning New Digital Tools for Activism and
Experimentation in the City. HCI, Politics, and the City (CHI 2011 workshop), May 2011.
5. Payne A; Storbacka K; Frow P, 2008, ‘Managing the Co-Creation of Value’, Journal of the Academy of Mar-
keting Science, vol. 36, no. 1, pp. 83 - 96
6. Bason, 2010.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. (2006). Service-dominant logic: reactions, reections and renements. Marketing
Theory, 6(3), 281–288.
10. Gibson, R. (2006), Beyond the pillars: sustainability assessment as a framework for eective integration
of social, economic, and ecological considerations in signicant decision-making. Journal of
Environmental Policy and Management. 08 (3)
11. Bott, M. & Young, G. (2012). The role of crowdsourcing for better governance in international develop
ment.
Praxis: The Fletcher Journal of Security
, 27, 47-70.
12. Gibson, R. (2006), Beyond the pillars: sustainability assessment as a framework for eective integration
of social, economic, and ecological considerations in signicant decision-making. Journal of
Environmental Policy and Management. 08 (3), 259
13. Ibid.
14. Needham, C (2008) ‘Realising the Potential of Co-production: Negotiating Improvements in Public Ser
vices ‘, Journal of Social Policy and Society , themed section: ‘Choice or voice or something
else? User participation in public services’, Greener, I. and Talbot, C. (eds), 7:2, 2008, pp. 221-
31
15. Marian Dörk and David Monteyne. Urban Co-Creation: Envisioning New Digital Tools for Activism and
Experimentation in the City. HCI, Politics, and the City (CHI 2011 workshop), May 2011
16. Percy, S. L. (1984). Citizen Participation in the Coproduction of Urban Services. Urban Aairs Review,
19(4), 431-446
17. Schorr, L. (1997).
Common purpose: strengthening families and neighborhoods to rebuild America
. New
York. Anchor.
18. Leadbeater, C. (1984). Personalization through participation: a new script for public services. Demos. Lon
don.
19. Bason, C. (2010). Leading public sector innovation. Bristol. Policy Press.
20. Arturo Muente-Kunigami. “Design Thinking for Government Services: What happens when the past limits
our vision of the future?” Blogs.worldbank.org. Accessed on April 11, 2013
21. Bason, C. (2010). Leading public sector innovation. Bristol. Policy Press
22. Kelly, G., Mulgan, G. and Muers, S. (2002), Creating Public Value: An Analytical Framework for Public
Service Reform, discussion paper prepared by the Cabinet Oce Strategy Unit, United King
dom.
23. Sorensen, E. and Torng, J. (2008). Theories of Democratic Network Governance. New York. Macmil
lian.
24. Needham, C (2008) ‘Realising the Potential of Co-production: Negotiating Improvements in Public Ser
vices ‘, Journal of Social Policy and Society , themed section: ‘Choice or voice or something
else? User participation in public services’, Greener, I. and Talbot, C. (eds), 7:2, 2008, pp. 221-
31
25. Funtowicz, S. O., and J. R. Ravetz 1992. Three types of risk assessment and the emergence of post-normal
science. In Krimsky, S., and D. Golding, ed.
Social theories of risk
. p. 251-274. Westport, CT: Prae
ger. Accessed June 13, 2013.
26. Eden, S. and Bear, C. 2012. The good, the bad, and the hands-on: constructs of public participation, an
glers,and lay management of water environments. Environment and Planning A 44(5), pp. 1200-
1218.
27. Kukkuru, M. Co-creation is today’s most accepted model for innovation. Pricepoints.wordpress.com. Ac
cessed March 4, 2013.
9
+1 617-506-3499
Leading
Cities
... With the interest in the co-creation premise, the organisational model breaks free from a closed, hierarchically organised, and top-down model to transition into an open model which relies on bottom-up engagement and multi-stakeholder collaboration. Public service innovations will only produce outcomes that matter when key stakeholders are actively involved in a design process, supported by multidirectional communication and learning (Agusti et al., 2014). Co-creation thus requests a shift not only in the organisational culture (cf. ...
... Co-created knowledge can only be impactful when it is turned into concrete action by and integrated in decision-making processes of the city administration. New technologies have also enabled citizens to co-create in a digital way with their local government (Agusti et al., 2014). Digital technologies can empower individuals and increase the opportunities for more personalised and demand-driven public services (Meijer, 2012;Noveck, 2015). ...
... Furthermore, cocreation can yield services which are more holistic and synergistic than existing solutions, or in new solutions that even outperform the previous ones (Sørensen & Torfing, 2011). Thirdly, through co-creation, the city government can tap into the resources of citizens themselves (Agusti et al., 2014). With the help of digital technologies, citizens can collect real-time data and send it directly to their city administration. ...
... In addition, planning processes which incorporate public participation have the potential to bring about more socially sustainable transportation and enhance the quality of public life (Boisjoly and Yengoh, 2017;Majumdar, 2017). Furthermore, increased social capital can also serve to balance inequities between social classes (Hom et al., 2014). ...
... Co-creation, which can be defined as a collaborative approach to creating value by engaging multiple stakeholders in development of products or services (Hom et al., 2014), shares some characteristics with participatory processes, in that both are directed towards producing outcomes which are a result of a collaborative effort (Hom et al., 2014). However, co-creation goes beyond participation processes in that it requires practical outcomes in addition to actionable knowledge (Prager, 2016). ...
... Co-creation, which can be defined as a collaborative approach to creating value by engaging multiple stakeholders in development of products or services (Hom et al., 2014), shares some characteristics with participatory processes, in that both are directed towards producing outcomes which are a result of a collaborative effort (Hom et al., 2014). However, co-creation goes beyond participation processes in that it requires practical outcomes in addition to actionable knowledge (Prager, 2016). ...
Article
Introduction The paper describes and examines a novel methodology to co-define transport and mobility challenges and co-create solutions with residents of a socioeconomically disadvantaged area within Oxford in the UK. The co-creation methodology is examined in relation to the extent of participation, inclusivity, transparency, interactivity, scale, sustainability/continuity, replicability, potential for co-benefits. Methods A Citizen Mobility Community was established with local residents at the core, and including representatives from the local authority, and other stakeholders. The paper describes the main elements of the co-creation process applied to identify mobility challenges, identify solutions, endorse the mobility solutions, and develop the solutions into practical action. Setting The setting was the Eastern Arc of Oxford, the most socioeconomically deprived area in Oxford. Results A sequence of co-creation activities helped identify and understand the transport challenges in Barton in the Eastern Arc of Oxford. Challenges included the high cost of public transport, traffic congestion, particularly during morning peak times, and the lack of cross-connectivity and direct public transport routes to desirable locations including affordable supermarkets, train stations, workplaces, health services such as hospitals and other neighbourhoods. The co-creation methodology led to the development of three pilot interventions to address these challenges, namely face-to-face transport app training, a transport to supermarkets shuttle service, and an information campaign about concessionary bus passes. Analysis of the co-creation methodology found that the process achieved its aims of empowering citizens in decision making about addressing locally experienced transport challenges, and building social capital. Conclusions The co-creation enables communities in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage to identify their transport challenges, and to co-develop and co-design practical solutions. Co-creation to address local transport needs builds community empowerment, creates social capital and may contribute, through plausible causal pathways, to improved health and wellbeing in an area of socioeconomic disadvantage.
... pro-active role of users); diverse; hierarchy-flattening; shares power between organizations and stakeholders; bi-or multi-directional (i.e. information and ideas flow among stakeholders); mutually beneficial; trusted and transparent (Hom et al., 2014). Based on the literature review, different approaches and limitations of the concept discussed in this section co-creation is defined as a management initiative or a form of economic strategy which brings different actors together to jointly produce a mutually valued outcome (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004a). ...
... co-creation of public value is defined as a system driven by the goal of generating public value through the use of ICT and co-creation between the government sector, the private sector and the civil society. Hom et al. (2014) suggest that co-creation fundamentally differs from the regular public participation forms. "Co-creation techniques possess the potential for overcoming the limitations of time and geography and may allow a significant leap in the scale and influence of public involvement <…> Additionally, co-creative techniques view people as proactive citizens, rather than as consumers of services, focused primarily on culture change, rather than on short-term outcomes, issues, or victories; and include a cross-section of entire communities, rather than parts of them" (Leading Cities, 2012, p. 4). ...
... The co-creation profoundly differs from the traditional understanding of public participation. First, the co-creative initiatives can overcome the time and geography limitations and may allow "a significant leap in the scale and influence of public involvement" (Hom et al., 2014). Moreover, the co-creative perspective regards people as proactive citizens rather than as consumers of services. ...
Thesis
Full-text available
Doctoral dissertation contributes theoretically and empirically to the research stream of co-creation by focusing on the ICT-enabled collective actions of citizens, communities, governmental organizations, business entities, NGOs and other stakeholders in the creation of public value. The object of the research is the public value co-creation in Lithuanian and international civic technology platforms. The goal of the research was to propose an ICT-Enabled Co-Creative Ecosystem model aimed at the development of public value. Theoretical aspects of ICT-enabled public value co-creation were examined using meta-analysis, comparative analysis and generalization methods of related scientific research. The empirical investigations were based on phenomenological research strategy and qualitative research triangulation approach. Three complementary empirical studies have been conducted – expert interviews, mapping and qualitative content analysis of Lithuanian civic technology platforms and comparative content analysis of international civic technology platforms. The completed research activities allowed to build an in-depth working knowledge of the public value co-creation domain and its performance, outputs and impacts. In the light of the main observations that have emerged from the design of ICT-Enabled Co-Creative Ecosystem Model, it has become possible to develop recommendations aimed at increasing the co-creative capacities of governmental, private and civic entities.
... According to Szkuta, Pizzicanella and Osimo [2], the coproduction concept emerged in the 70s to define services delivered with a high degree of user involvement, and has reemerged in research agenda with the advent of digital services. Leading Cities Reports shows that the modern concept of co-creation had its origins in the business world, as early as in the 1990's regarding a new form of engagement with customers [3]. ...
... An increasing demand for greater participation, transparence and voice in public endeavors is being observed in most countries. The co-creation process changes the balance of power, since government traditionally occupied a role of inviting the public in for comments on pre-determined programs, starts to function in a more iterative decision making process, and for this process to occur there is requirement for higher degrees of trust and transparency between citizens and government officials [3]. According to Hartley [8] co-production is a "a complex and iterative process through which problems are defined; new ideas are developed and combined; prototypes and pilots are designed, tested and redesigned; and new solutions are implemented, diffused and problematized. ...
... In the field of urban policies, studies on dwellers' participation in the co-creation of solutions for cities show an increase in engagement due to both residents and the government side. As a result of collaboration, authorities become more open to the needs and expectations of residents, their decisions become more effective and efficient, while city dwellers become more satisfied and accepting of government actions regarding the functioning of the city (Agusti et al., 2014). Evidently, cocreation is no longer seen as a way of production, but as an expectation of multilevel sustainable development of the whole city, through strengthening urban functioning, urban planning, municipal governance, inhabitants development, and building association among individual residents and officials (Wamsler, 2016). ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Education for sustainable development supports the improvement of knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviors related to global challenges such as climate change, global warming and environmental degradation, among others. It is increasingly taking place through projects based on information and communication technologies. The effectiveness of the actions taken depends not only on the quality of the project activities or the sophistication of the innovative tools used. Social commitment also depends on the beliefs and moral judgements manifested by potential recipients of educational activities on environmental issues. This study aimed to identify the beliefs and moral judgements that may facilitate or hinder the implementation of educational activities based on information and communication technology, shaping pro-environmental attitudes and behavior among city dwellers. Based on the co-creation workshops conducted, five general categories emerged: responsibility, sense of empowerment, local leadership, real eco-approach, and eco-knowledge. The research findings may contribute to the design of educational activities dedicated to shaping the pro-environmental behavior of city dwellers.
... In the field of urban policies, studies on dwellers' participation in the co -creation of solutions for cities show an increase in engagement due to both residents and the government side. As a result of collaboration, authorities become more open to the needs and expectations of residents, their decisions become more effective and efficient, while city dwellers become more satisfied and accepting of gover nment actions regarding the functioning of the city (Agusti et al., 2014). Evidently, cocreation is no longer seen as a way of production, but as an expectation of multi-level sustainable development of the whole city, through strengthening urban function ing, urban planning, municipal governance, inhabitants development, and building association among individual residents and officials (Wamsler, 2016). ...
Preprint
Education for sustainable development supports the improvement of knowledge, skills, attitudes and behaviors related to global challenges such as climate change, global warming and environmental degradation, among others. It is increasingly taking place through projects based on information and communication technologies. The effectiveness of the actions taken depends not only on the quality of the project activities or the sophistication of the innovative tools used. Social commitment also depends on the beliefs and moral judgements manifested by potential recipients of educational activities on environmental issues. This study aimed to identify the beliefs and moral judgements that may facilitate or hinder the implementation of educational activities based on information and communication technology, shaping pro-environmental attitudes and behavior among city dwellers. Based on the co-creation workshops conducted, five general categories emerged: responsibility, sense of empowerment, local leadership, real eco-approach, and eco-knowledge. The research findings may contribute to the design of educational activities dedicated to shaping the pro-environmental behavior of city dwellers.
Article
Full-text available
Cities are challenged with increasing population growth and need to implement smart solutions to become more resilient to economic, environmental, and social challenges posed by ongoing urbanization. This study reviewed business model development frameworks and developed a practical tool to help cities assess business models by adapting components of the Business Model Canvas (BMC) and adding new ones that operationalize the smart city dimensions. The Smart City BMC (SC-BMC) proposed provides a practical framework that supports developing and communicating a more holistic and integrated view of a smart city business model. It also supports creatively innovating toward more sustainable value creation. As a framework, the SC-BMC bridges sustainable value creation for business model development and smart city innovation.
Article
Full-text available
Marketing inherited a model of exchange from economics, which had a dominant logic based on the exchange of “goods,” which usually are manufactured output. The dominant logic focused on tangible resources, embedded value, and transactions. Over the past several decades, new perspectives have emerged that have a revised logic focused on intangible resources, the cocreation of value, and relationships. The authors believe that the new per- spectives are converging to form a new dominant logic for marketing, one in which service provision rather than goods is fundamental to economic exchange. The authors explore this evolving logic and the corresponding shift in perspective for marketing scholars, marketing practitioners, and marketing educators.
Article
Full-text available
We use a qualitative study of recreational anglers in northern England to explore constructions of ‘the public’ in environmental management. We examine good and bad constructs of ‘the public’ and show how they emphasise knowledge over practice. We argue for a more differentiated view of the public through ‘environmental engagement’ which will appreciate more fully ways in which both ‘specialised publics’ and ‘performative publics’ are imagined and enacted. We demonstrate how these constructs play out through attending to the discursive and material ‘hands-on’ practices of anglers in environmental management and show how these link different geographies of public participation through both discursive and material spaces. Keywords:public participation, anglers, environmental management, specialised publics, practices
Article
Full-text available
As one of its own foundational premises implies, the value of service- dominant (S-D) logic is necessarily in its open, collaborative effort. Thus, the authors invite and welcome both elaborative and critical viewpoints. Five recurring, con- tentious issues among collaborating scholars, as they attempt to understand the full nature and scope of S-D logic, are identified. These issues are clarified and refined, as is appropriate to this co-creation of a service-centric philosophy by the worldwide marketing community. Key Wordsmarketing theoryrelationship marketing • resource integrationresource theoryservice-dominant logicS-D logic • service marketing
Book
In a time of unprecedented turbulence, how can public sector organisations increase their ability to find innovative solutions to society's problems? "Leading public sector innovation" shows how government agencies can use co-creation to overcome barriers and deliver more value, at lower cost, to citizens and business. Through inspiring global case studies and practical examples, the book addresses the key triggers of public sector innovation. It shares new tools for citizen involvement through design thinking and ethnographic research, and pinpoints the leadership roles needed to drive innovation at all levels of government. "Leading public sector innovation" is essential reading for public managers and staff, social innovators, business partners, researchers, consultants and others with a stake in the public sector of tomorrow. "This is an excellent book, setting out a clear framework within which the practicalIssues involved in public sector innovation are explored, using insights drawn from extensive practical experience of implementing and supporting it. It draws on an impressive range of research and relevant wider experience in both public and private sectors and is written in a clear and persuasive style. The book offers an excellent synthesis of principles, practices and tools to enable real traction on the innovation management problem - and it ought to find a place on any manager's bookshelf." John Bessant, Director of Research and Knowledge Transfer and Professor of Innovation and Entrepreneurship, University of Exeter Business School.
Article
Citizen coproduction is the productive involvement urban residents can supply to the provision of city services. This article introduces the symposium on citizen coproduction of urban services by tracing the concepts and arguments in the coproduction literature. Definitions of coproduction are reviewed, along with propositions that relate citizen coproduction to outcomes such as effectiveness, efficiency, and responsiveness. Also considered are impediments to the implementation of coproduction programs related to urban service delivery. This article also introduces the other articles in this symposium.