ArticlePDF Available

Continuous co-creation: how ongoing involvement impacts outcomes of co-creation

Taylor & Francis
Public Management Review
Authors:

Abstract and Figures

It is broadly recognized that outcomes of co-creation processes in the public sector depend on early and extensive involvement of relevant and affected actors. However, few have paid attention to whether involvement at later stages matters for outcomes. This article develops a continuity perspective on patterns of involvement in co-creation, and applies it to two case studies of co-created reforms in a local public bureaucracy in Denmark. The study shows that continuous, high-levels involvement strengthen outcomes of co-creation i terms of innovation, higher ownership of solutions, and the development of trust among participants.]
Content may be subject to copyright.
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
1
Continuous Co-creation: How Ongoing Involvement Impacts Outcomes of Co-creation
Tina Øllgaard Bentzen, Ph.D. Associate Professor, Roskilde School of Governance, Roskilde University
Abstract
Co-creation is on the rise as a strategy for solving wicked problems in the public sector. It is
broadly recognized that co-creation calls for extensive involvement of relevant and affected actors.
Moreover, researchers generally agree that early high-level involvement of relevant and affected
actors affects the outcomes of co-creation processes. However, few have paid attention to whether
levels of involvement in co-creation at later stages matter for outcomes. This article develops a
continuity perspective on patterns of involvement in co-creation, and applies it to two case studies
of co-created reforms in a local public bureaucracy in Denmark. The study shows that continuous,
high-level involvement strengthens the outcomes of co-creation in terms of innovation, higher
ownership of solutions, and the development of trust among participants.
Keywords: Co-creation, Involvement, Outcomes of Co-creation, Public Sector Innovation, Trust
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
2
Introduction
Co-creation is on the rise both amongst practitioners and public administration scholars (Horne and
Shirley 2009; OECD 2011; Vesnic-Alujevic et al. 2019). Inspired by ideas associated with the New
Public Governance paradigm, public decision makers are turning to co-creation as a tool for solving
wicked societal problems (Rittel and Webber 1973; van Bueren, Klijn, and Koppenjan 2003;
Osborne 2006). Co-creation relies on the mobilization of all relevant and affected actors in mutual
collaboration in order to define problems, develop solutions and implement them in practice
(Nabatchi, Sancino, and Sicilia 2017; Torfing, Sørensen, and Røiseland 2019).
Several scholars have contributed to our understanding of co-creation by stressing the importance of
extensive involvement of involved actors (Arnstein, 1969; Geissel & Newton, 2012; Nabatchi,
2012). Involvement is often portrayed as a ladder, or spectrum, which spans from limited (or even
vague, symbolic) information provided by formal power-holders to mutual, engaged dialogue
among all involved actors regardless of their formal power. The time of involvement has also
received attention in the co-production literature, which is distinct in its focus on involvement in
later stages of implementation (Brandsen & Honingh, 2018). While co-production designates a
certain mode of user-involving in service delivery, co-creation points to a participatory and
capacity-enhancing mode of governance in which not only services but also plans, strategies and
policies are co-created (Ansell & Torfing, 2020; Brandsen & Honingh, 2018). Hence, co-creation,
emphasises the importance of initial involvement: relevant actors must be involved early on in
defining problems and designing solutions in order to include their knowledge and mobilize their
resources (Brandsen & Honingh, 2018; Voorberg, Bekkers, and Tummers 2015). While the
importance of extensive and early involvement has been addressed in the literature, the argument
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
3
that the different phases of co-creation are interconnected and that positive outcomes of co-creation
hinge on continuously high levels of involvement has not been made.
Although the conditions for co-creation have received substantial scholarly attention, the outcomes
of co-creation are still debated within the literature (Fledderus 2018; Torfing, Sørensen, and
Røiseland 2019; Fledderus 2015; Voorberg, Bekkers, and Tummers 2015). Some scholars suggest
that co-creation can strengthen both innovation, ownership of solutions and as well as sthrengthen
trust among participants (Torfing, Sørensen, and Røiseland 2019, Fledderus, 2016). However,
several scholars stress that knowledge about the outcomes of co-creation is still scarce and that co-
creation is by no means a guarantee of success (Fledderus 2015; Voorberg, Bekkers, and Tummers
2014; Fledderus 2018). This study will focus on innovation as an intended outcome, and on more
relational outcomes in terms of ownership of solutions and trust among participants.
This article proposes that the outcomes of co-creation depend not only on the initial level of
involvement of relevant actors but also on continuously high levels of involvement throughout later
stages of co-creation. Hence, the research question guiding this study is:
How does the continuity of involvement in co-creation processes, impact outcomes of co-creation in
terms of innovation, ownership of solutions, and trust among participants?
Drawing on existing research, the study develops a conceptual framework for analysing patterns of
involvement from a continuity perspective and applies it to two case studies from a Danish
municipality that is actively pursuing co-creation reforms. To test the proposition, the cases are
similar in their initial high levels of involvement, but differ significantly in levels of involvement at
later stages of co-creation. Drawing on interviews, observations and policy documents, the studies
indicate that continuity in cases of early high-level involvement matters for innovation, ownership
of solutions, and trust development among participants.
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
4
Firstly, the theoretical framework is developed, allowing us to analyse the impact of levels and
temporal patterns of involvement in a co-creation process. Secondly, case selection and methods are
accounted for, followed by analyses of the two empirical cases. The article ends with a discussion
of the findings and concluding remarks specifying directions for practitioners and agendas for
future research.
A Continuity Approach to the Study of Involvement in Co-creation
Inspired by network-based theories of collaborative governance, collaborative innovation and
participatory governance, co-creation highlights the potential of bringing together relevant and
affected public and private actors in a shared endeavour to solve wicked problems (Hartley,
Sørensen, and Torfing 2013; Emerson and Nabatchi 2015; Nabatchi 2012; Ansell and Gash 2008;
Torfing, Sørensen, and Røiseland 2019; Voorberg 2017; Kooiman 1993). Co-creation can be
defined as a process in which several actors collaborate voluntarily in a mutual and balanced way in
defining problems, finding solutions and implementing them in practice (Nabatchi, Sancino, and
Sicilia 2017; Torfing, Sørensen, and Røiseland 2019). Co-creation may both be used as a strategy
for strengthening policy making, public service provision or, as in the case of this study,
administrative problem solving (Bentzen, Sørensen & Torfing, 2020).
Co-creation shares common ground with “co-“ concepts such as coordination, cooperation and
collaboration, though also distinct in a number of ways. Cooperation, coordination and
collaboration are located at different points on a continuum of integrative mechanisms, depending
on the timely period of interaction, levels of knowledge sharing and trust as well as intensity of
interaction, power sharing and mutual interdependence (Keast and Mandell 2014; Keast, Brown &
Mandell 2007). While Cooperation entails short term relations, relatively few invested resourced
and low levels of relational intensity and mutual risk taking, Coordination advances risk taking and
investment of resources as planning, decision-making and policies are increasingly shared (Ciger
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
5
2001, Lawson 2002, Keast and Mandell 2014). Collaboration takes the density of relations a step
further, characterized by long-term relationships, high levels of reciprocal interdependency and vast
resource investment as well as acceptance of high risks (Gray 1989; Ciger 2001). Co-creation is an
even more decentered version of collaboration (Ansell & Torfing, 2020) in which public authorities
are merely one among many actors involved in distributed forms of interaction, aimed at joint and
often co-initiated agendas. Hence, risks in co-creation are heightened and power distances lowered
even further, in order to enable the capacity to mobilize diverse and complementary resources as
well as pursue innovative solution (Ansell & Torfing, 2020).
The co-creation literature has paid particular attention to the involvement of citizens and users, who
are even considered obligatory actors in co-creation among some scholars (Brandsen et al., 2018;
Taco Brandsen & Honingh, 2016; Voorberg et al., 2015; Voorberg, Bekkers, Timeus, & Tonurist,
2017). Other scholars merely underlines the key principle that everybody who can contribute to
solving the problem at hand should be encouraged to participate (Stickdorn & Schneider, 2012;
Bryson, Sancino, Benington and Sørensen 2017 ). Such potential, relevant actors could include
politicians, public managers, professionals, and voluntary groups of citizens, civil society
organizations, social enterprises and private corporations (Torfing, Sørensen, and Røiseland 2019;
Nabatchi, Sancino, and Sicilia 2017). Following this line of argumentation, co-creation is not
characterized by the participation of any one specific group of actors. Rather, all actors, relevant to
solving a problem, should be gathered in engaged collaboration to define problems, develop
solutions and implement them robustly. The understanding of co-creation in this study is in line
with this latter perspective.
Levels of Involvement
Arnstein’s ladder of citizens’ participation constitutes one of the earliest attempts to conceptualize
various forms of interaction between citizens and public authorities, spanning from non-
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
6
participation to full citizen control (Arnstein 1969). The co-creation literature, however, distances
itself from the ideal of full citizen control as the optimal level of involvement, and instead offers an
alternative collaboration ideal. Since co-creation entails power sharing, Nabatchi suggests a
modified spectrum of participation focusing on the mode of communication: in addition to non-
participation (no information), actors may experience one-way communication (uni-directional
information), two- way communication (bi-directional flow of information) and deliberate
communication (engaged dialogue) (Nabatchi 2012). Engaged dialogue is characterized by a
mutual, respectful exploration of all involved actors’ perspectives, low power distance and a high
level of shared power (Geissel and Newton 2012; Smith 2009). Nabatchi’s spectrum of involvement
describes a role development ranging from passive actors decoupled from top-down decision-
making processes to highly active actors thoroughly engaged in a co-creative partnership in which
formal power is shared among all involved actors. Hence, engaged dialogue becomes the ideal
mode of communication in co-creation processes. Nabatchi’s spectrum of participation and the ideal
of engaged dialogue will constitute the vertical dimensions in the developed theoretical framework,
enabling analysis of levels of involvement throughout co-creation processes.
Time of Involvement
Timelines in policy processes are central both in classical implementation theory as well as in
policy-making theory, in which agenda-setting, problem definition, solution development;
implementation and evaluation are well-known phases or parts of policy cycles (Kingdon 1984;
Sabatier and Mazmanian 1980; Hill 2009).
The time of involvement has, however, also received attention within the co-creation and co-
production literature. Inspired by design innovation theory, a common distinction is between the
actors as co-initiators who define problems, co-designers of solutions and co-implementers of the
selected solutions (Voorberg, Bekkers, and Tummers 2015; Bason 2010; Brandsen and Honingh
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
7
2016). As mentioned, co-creation is characterized by its emphasis on early co-initiation and co-
design, while co-production mainly focuses on involvement later in the implementation of service
solutions (Brandsen, Verschuere, and Steen 2018). While describing different roles for actors, this
debate also highlights the importance of the time of involvement: the initiation and formulation of
the problem at hand comes before the design of solutions, which can then be implemented. Hence,
the time of involvement is an essential factor that shapes what may legitimately be debated. Early
influence allows actors to engage in agenda setting and influence the understanding of the problem,
which may fundamentally impact the choice of solution. When involvement happens later in the
process, previous decisions about e.g. the type of solution will often be closed for debate, delimiting
involvement to questions of how to implement the solution, for instance. Involvement in
implementation is consequently more limited than involvement in the formulation of problems. In
addition, co-evaluation has been highlighted as an emerging field which points to the importance of
involving relevant actors in evaluating processes, outputs and outcomes of co-creation (Emerson
and Nabatchi 2015; Koontz and Thomas 2006, Brandsen and Honingh 2018). Hence, the time of
involvement is certainly present as a latent theme in the debate, although it has not been
consistently linked to discussions about levels of involvement. In this study, the timeline of
involvement will be used as the horizontal dimension in the theoretical framework, focusing on the
phases of problem definition, solution development, implementation and evaluation.
Conceptualization: A Continuity Approach to Co-creation
Building on these literatures, a theoretical framework for studying involvement in co-creation
should assume that co-creation ideally entails high levels of involvement both in problem definition,
design of solutions, implementation and evaluation (Nabatchi et al., 2017; Torfing et al., 2019;
Voorberg, 2017). While early and extensive involvement are frequent recommendations in the
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
8
literature, this study proposes that both the time and level of involvement affect outcomes and must
be analysed as two interplaying yet independent dimensions in co-creation processes.
Figure 1, below, combines the two dimensions on two axes, allowing us to analyse levels of
involvement continuously throughout co-creation processes.
Figure 1: Conceptual Framework: a continuity perspective on co-creation
The horizontal x-axis describes the timeline of central phases in the process. The first three phases
of problem definition, solution development and implementation largely correspond to the roles of
co-initiator, co-designer and co-implementer that are widely used in the literature (Brandsen et al.,
2018; Voorberg, 2017). In addition, a fourth phase - evaluation - has been added, inspired by an
emerging field of scholars discussing prospects of co-evaluating processes, outputs and outcomes of
co-creation (Emerson and Nabatchi 2015; Koontz and Thomas 2006, Brandsen and Honingh, 2018).
The vertical y-axis illustrates varying levels of involvement. Drawing on Nabatchi’s spectrum of
participation according to mode of communication, the y-axis spans from non-communication
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
9
through one-way communication and two-way communication, ending up with deliberative
communication at the top of the scale (Nabatchi 2012).
As indicated by the grey area at the top of the figure, co-creation ideally entails continuous,
deliberate communication throughout all phases of the process. Combing the two scales allows for
an analysis of all phases of co-creative processes, which despite great ambitions for involvement
may differ significantly when applied in practice throughout the later phases.
Outcomes of Co-creation
The study of co-creation has been more concerned with identifying the conditions for the
emergence of co-creation than with measuring and assessing its impact. Hence, there is still limited
knowledge about the outcomes of co-creation (Pestoff, Brandsen, and Verschuere 2012; Brandsen,
Verschuere, and Steen 2018). However, the co-creation literature suggests several prospects for
engaging actors in a collaborative approach, which are indirectly related to enhancing the
effectiveness and legitimacy of governance initiatives.
Co-creation is believed to foster more innovation, understood as the development and practical
realization of new and creative ideas that generate added value within a given context (Bommert
2010; Torfing and Ansell 2017; Sørensen and Torfing 2011, Hartley 2005). Hence, innovation is
characterized by a newness of ideas (within a specific context) and by actually being brought into
practice. While, some scholars stress that innovation may also foster valuable outcomes in terms of
incremental changes (Arundel, Bloch, and Ferguson 2019; Bugge and Bloch 2016), others require
more radical changes to view it as innovation (Ansell and Torfing 2020; Demircioglu and
Audretsch 2020; Moore and Hartley 2008). However, added value, within a given context, is a
consistent requirement for innovation, which should ideally contribute to solve the defined problem
at hand (Bason 2018; Moore and Hartley 2018). Several scholars argue that co-creation is likely to
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
10
spur innovation given its ability to create divergence in perspectives on problems, as well as
strengthening realisation of ideas given high commitment among key actors (Bason, 2018, Hartley
2005). Nevertheless several scholars warn that solutions to wicked problems are not necessarily
easy to innovate (Voorberg, Bekkers, and Tummers 2015; Brandsen, Verschuere and Steen 2018;
Agranoff 2016; Triantafillou 2019). Aspects such as hierarchy, silo structures, closed and top-down
processes characterize bureaucratic government, creating barriers for co-creation processes actually
leading to innovation (Boomert 2010; Hartley, 2005). The few empirical studies that have addressed
this question show diverging results, and several scholars point to the need for more research about
the potential of co-creation in regard to spurring innovation (Voorberg, Bekkers, & Tummers, 2014;
Voorberg et al., 2015)
Co-creation can foster higher ownership of solutions, and perceptions of higher quality in solutions
(Voorberg, Bekkers, & Tummers, 2014). Higher ownership of solutions may partly be explained by
the value of participation and empowerment of local actors (Norris 2011; Warren 2009; Torfing,
Sørensen, and Røiseland 2019). Several studies suggest that when organizational actors can exercise
influence over the chosen solutions, they tend to support and comply with them to a greater extent
(Coletti, Sedatole, & Towry, 2005; Frey & Jegen, 2001; van Thiel & Yesilkagit, 2011). However,
other studies suggest that co-creation does not guarantee higher levels of ownership and satisfaction
(Fledderus 2015). Co-creation may also counter ownership if it is perceived as a pseudo-process
primarily used to legitimize decisions that have already been taken (Steen, Brandsen, and
Verschuere 2018).
Another potential outcome of co-creation is building trust, defined as willingness to take the risk of
making oneself vulnerable to another person or party in the belief that they will take care of your
interests (Möllering 2006; Fledderus 2018; Rousseau and Sitkin 1998). Trust functions as an
important lubricant in social processes, allowing the reduction of transaction costs and enabling
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
11
smooth operations. Although trust is thought to be a potential outcome of co-creation, existing
research does not point to univocal conclusions (Fledderus 2018). Co-creation may even erode the
future conditions for engaging in co-creation if involvement is perceived as symbolic rather than
genuine (Steen, Brandsen, & Verschuere, 2018). Hence, trust as an outcome of co-creation may
also play a decisive role regarding willingness to engage in future co-creation processes. However,
existing knowledge about trust as an outcome of co-creation is still scarce (Fledderus 2018;
Brandsen, Verschuere, and Steen 2018).
Summing up, the limited existing research on innovation, ownership of solutions and trust
development among participants as potential outcomes of co-creation points to a number of
potential benefits, although several studies also point out that outcomes co-creation are no
guaranteed success and stress the need for more knowledge on the subject (Fledderus, 2015;
Voorberg et al., 2014).
Case Selection and Methods
This study draws on the case study method as the research design calls for in-depth knowledge
about the proposed dynamics of continuous co-creation. The study draws on two case studies from a
Danish Municipality actively pursuing co-creation as a strategy to solve the wicked problem of
administrative burdens in the municipality. The first case is from the Day Care Department while
the second case is from the School Department. The two cases are similar in their high ambition to
use co-creation as a strategy. However, in order to gain insight about how the continuity of co-
creation impact outcomes of co-creation, the cases are, selected as “most differentcases (Flyvbjerg
2006) regarding one key aspect: the level of involvement at later stages of co-creation. Levels of
initial involvement are high in both cases, but differ significantly at later stages of co-creation. This
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
12
allows us to analyse how the outcomes of co-creation are impacted by variations in later
involvement in initially high involvement processes.
A number of methods are triangulated in the study. In order to gain insight from the perspective of
all involved actors, semi-structured interviews were conducted with the Municipal CEO, the CEO
of Day-care and Schools, the Chief of Day-care and the Chief of Schools; Consultants from the
administration (3 from the school Center and 3 from the Day care Center); 6 local leaders at
institutions (3 schools and 3 kindergartens) and 4 focus group interviews with employees at local
institutions (2 schools and 2 Kindergartens). Individual interviews lasted approximately 1 hour
while focus groups lasted approximately 1.5 hour. 12 central policy documents including project
descriptions, communication materials, invitations to meetings and status rapports were used to
understand decision processes prior to the decision to use co-creation as a strategy for solving
problems of administrative burdens. 6 observations were made of meetings in workings groups,
presentations and educational activities providing tacit knowledge and insight into real-life
interaction among the involved actors. However, as the time of empirical touch-down varies
between the two cases, only one observation is from the school case while 5 observations were
made in the Day-care case, which was empirically more accessible throughout the whole process.
In the Day Care center a survey among all involved employees and leaders in the institutions testing
the new control system, was conducted in collaboration between the researcher and the
Administration. The survey was conducted in 2019 after the first test of the newly co-created
supervision system with extensive actor involvement, aiming to explore ownership of the developed
solutions. 99 out of 260 respondents from institutions that had tested the new supervision system
were invited, resulting in a response rate of 38%. Unfortunately, it was not possible to conduct a
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
13
similar survey in the School center, which would have strengthened comparability regarding the
quantitative data.
The two cases share pronounced ambitions to co-create and involve all actors with stakes in the
problem at hand, but they differ in other ways: first, the professionals in the School Department are
primarily teachers, while pedagogues constitute the main group of professionals in the Day-care
Department. Teachers are often considered a stronger profession than pedagogues, which could
affect approaches to, and willingness to, co-create (Noordegraaf 2007). It must also be taken into
account that co-creation in the School Department has a much broader focus compared to the
relatively narrow problem of supervision in the Day-care Department. While sharing the same
ambition of involving affected actors, the more diffuse process in the School Department could
create more challenges in terms of narrowing down key involved actors.
All empirical data from the two cases were coded in N-Vivo along the two dimensions of time of
involvement and level of involvement. Data were also coded for perceptions of outcomes in terms
of ownership of solutions, innovativeness of solutions, and Trust among participants. Based on the
coding, the results will now be presented: first, levels of involvement in the Day-care Department
and School Department will be analysed using a continuity perspective. Second, the outcomes of
the two processes will be analysed in terms of innovation, ownership to solutions and trust among
participants.
Results
The purpose of this study is to gain insight into how the continuity of involvement throughout later
stages of co-creation processes affects the outcomes of co-creation. Hence, we begin by analysing
involvement in the two cases using a continuity perspective.
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
14
Involvement in the Day-care Department seen from a continuity perspective
The first case focuses on the co-creation of a new supervision system in day-care institutions, which
took place from 2018 to 2019. Both employees and users in the day-care institutions experience
supervision as time-consuming, decoupled from the institution’s practical life and development, and
as undermining trust between the local and central level of the organization. Decisions about
supervision systems have traditionally been taken by the top management of the municipality, but it
is now decided that all relevant actors are to be involved in the process of finding a better control
system. This case is, as we shall see, characterized by continuously high levels of involvement
throughout all the phases of co-creation.
Traditionally, control systems are developed in the administration and implemented top down. The
new ambition to co-create, however, calls for new approaches:
“It would be much easier for me to ask some of my consultants to develop a new control system.
Like we tend to do. But that is not the way we create good solutions. We need to involve the people
who will be working with the supervision” (Chief of Day-care).
Hence, the approach to problem solving has changed towards an ideal of engaging all involved
actors - especially the frontline workers. The process in the Day-care Department begins with a
common problem exploration in which local leaders, employees and union representatives are
involved in a number of facilitated workshops and local dialogues to build a common understanding
of problematic administrative burdens. The emphasis in these workshops are on creating a common
diagnosis, but all actors are also involved in processes of prioritizing which problems are to be
addressed first. Among many diagnosed administrative burdens, the supervision system stands out
as a key challenge.
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
15
“They experience the supervision as resource-demanding and decoupled from their pedagogical
practice. They feel like supervision is not really contributing. It just takes time from the daily tasks
and does not really create learning’ (Consultant in the Day-care Department)
Summing up, the explorative process among all involved actors consistently points to the system of
supervision as a problem in need of attention. The co-creation ambition requires a new approach
towards organizing the process. A group of local leaders and employees constitutes a working team,
facilitated by a consultant from the administration. However, other groups of employees, local
leaders, union representatives, parents on boards, supervision consultants, and central leaders in the
Day-care Department are frequently in dialogue with the group and continuously provide input into
their work. Inputs from all employees are also collected through an initial survey aimed at exploring
the problems and benefits of the existing supervision system. Hence, problem-definition is
characterized by many platforms and fora experienced as supporting engaged dialogue among the
involved actors.
Based on those inputs, the Chief of Day-care decides to allocate resources to start a process in
which a solution to this specific problem is to be developed and implemented through co-creation
among all actors. The decision is formally taken by the Chief, but ongoing bi-directional
communication, especially with the core working group is taking place both before and after the
decision. Although the working group is not formally engaged in the decision, there is widespread
acceptance of the chief making the formal decision. In fact several leaders stress, that being
transparent about the decision-making process , is better than “pretending that we have full power”
when in fact this decision is dependent on approval in the formal hierarchy. Hence, aligning
expectations appears to be of importance when levels of involvement are lowered.
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
16
After the decision to pursue a new supervision system, the process of developing a new solution
begins. This process is also anchored in the core-group and facilitated by the consultant, but the
involvement of other actors intensifies at the same time. An ongoing question in the working groups
is when to involve other actors in the process, and how to secure good communication to the rest of
organization about what is going on. Day-care consultants, especially the supervision consultants
are now involved in several dialogues with the core group about their concerns and professional
wishes for the new system. After a period of exploring possible solutions, the core group as well as
a group of local leaders and Day-care and Supervision consultants are given the task of choosing
between three solutions. Although several actors describe this process as challenging due to many
different needs, concerns and suggestions, many feel it has been valuable both in regard to
developing the new supervision system, but also in terms of understanding other actors’ needs:
It was certainly no chit-chat! And it is important to stress that co-creation is not an open buffet for
us leaders and our employees (…) It made me realize that this solution should not just make sense
to us (the local leaders) but also to the Day-care and Supervision consultants, who spend a lot of
time on this task‘ (local leader).
Generally, both local and central actors experience the development of the solution as characterized
by engaged dialogue among all involved actors.
After several rounds of dialogue with leaders, employees, union representatives and consultants, the
core group decides on a solution, which is now to be implemented. However, rather than doing a
full scale implementation in the whole organization, they decide on testing the solution in one area
in order to further develop the supervision system. This gives the supervision consultants and local
actors the chance to share their experiences with the core group from a pilot test: “Choosing to let
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
17
us and the local leaders and employees test the new system is such a good idea. People don’t panic
about the new system because they know we can adjust things”. (Supervision consultant)
Knowing that the implementation procedure is not final and that things can still be changed is
mentioned by several informants as vital to the results achieved in the process. After the first trial,
experiences both among local and central actors are collected and explored, and a few changes are
made to the supervision system. In addition, efforts are made to communicate continuously about
progress and upcoming activities in the project to all relevant actors who are not directly involved in
the working groups. Hence, the process of implementing the supervision system is permeated by
engaged dialogue among all involved actors.
After the initial test and adjustment, a follow-up survey among all local employees, leaders and
involved consultants is conducted in order to evaluate the new supervision system. A consultant
explains: “We depend on feedback from the people working with this in practice. It is so vital to use
that feedback to adjust our conception about what works’. The many inputs from all involved actors
is discussed in the core working group and time is spend communicating back to the organizations
about their experiences and learning so far. However, the decision to recommend the new
supervision system for political approval, is ultimately taken by the Department leader. Hence,
evaluation of the new system is characterized by bi-directional communication.
Figure 2 depicts the level of involvement in all the phases of co-creation of the new supervision
system in the Day-care Department, showing a pattern of continuously high levels of involvement
throughout the whole process, predominantly through engaged dialogue. Although phases which
require formal decisions draw only on bi-directional communication, the overall process is
generally characterized by co-creation in which all involved actors continuously shape
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
18
developments.
Figure 2: Continuity of co-creation in the Day Care Department
Involvement in the School Department seen from a continuity perspective
The second case concerns the process of dealing with administrative burdens in a municipal
Department of Schools. A process is initiated in which the administration involves a significant
number of local actors in identifying administrative burdens. Traditionally, administrative processes
are kept within the administration, but in this case, the School Department decides to embark on a
co-creative process with pronounced ambitions to engage all involved actors. The process takes
place from 2017 to 2019. This case is characterized by high initial involvement, which nonetheless,
drops significantly throughout the later phases of co-creation.
The process in the School Department starts out with a number of rather ambitious activities aimed
specifically at engaging local actors in identifying administrative burdens. Consultants from the
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
19
administration visit 6 out of 18 local schools and conduct 12 interviews with leaders, local union
representatives and employees. The interviews are followed up with a workshop to which all the
formerly interviewed actors are invited. At the workshop, the local actors are presented with their
suggestions, which has been organized in clustered themes by the consultants. During the
workshop, participants discuss the identified problems and debate priorities and possible solutions.
Both the CEO, the Area Chief and a number of administrative consultants are present and
participate in the group debates. Hence, the problem definition phase (here, identifying
administrative burdens) is characterized by engaged dialogue among all involved actors.
The output of the workshop is a long list of administrative burdens, which is then handled by the
administration. Although the actors at the workshop prioritized suggestions and began to give their
input as to how the problems could be solved, they are not directly involved in the development of
solutions. The Chief of Schools decides which suggestions are rejected and which are given
priority. A central administrator reflects on this in hindsight: ‘Some of their suggestions have just
been rejected. But do they know why? Maybe we couldn’t do anything about it, but shouldn’t we
then have informed them about the reasons for the rejection?
Most of the prioritized ideas are delegated to already established groups which are already working
on related themes. For instance, a working group dedicated to implementing a new system for
parent-communication at the schools is presented with a number of problems identified at the
workshop. Ultimately, no communication is attempted with local actors about the rejection of
proposals or the development of solutions to the problems they have identified: I remember the
workshop. That was nice and all. But honestly – I don’t know what has happened after that?’
(Teacher at local school). From this point, on the feeling of being disconnected from the process is
pronounced among almost all local actors, who also started to question the motives of the
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
20
administration: are they genuinely interested in solving the administrative burdens at the local level
or are they only interested in legitimizing decisions they have already made? ‘Frankly - I have
doubts how much they really listen. It feels a little like decisions are made beforehand” (local union
representative). The initial, engaged dialogue between local and central actors has rapidly died out
and growing suspicion is emerging from the local level.
From the perspective of the administration, solutions to a number of the locally diagnosed problems
are being addressed in the working groups or elsewhere in the administration. However, a central
consultant is very much aware that local and central perceptions of the process is diverging: People
outside the working groups tend to say: ‘Administrative burdens? Is that still a thing?’ Although
some solutions are being effectuated, implementation is characterised by non-communication with
local actors.
The progress of the project is monitored in the administration. Working groups in charge of the
various challenges report back to the consultant responsible, who then register the status in a
common overview. However, evaluation is primarily conducted in writing through email
correspondence with the working groups, and involves very little direct communication. As with
solution development and implementation, local actors from the schools are not involved in the
evaluation. Evaluation is (once again) characterized by non-communication with local leaders,
union-representatives and teachers, who at this point have not yet heard anything about the fate of
the suggestions they generated at the workshop.
As illustrated in Figure 3, the continuity of involvement in the School Department differs
remarkably from the Day-care Department. Although the process starts out with several activities
aimed at creating engaged dialogue among all involved actors, involvement drops dramatically
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
21
during the solution development, implementation and evaluation phases. Hence, the initially good
conditions for deliberative communication are followed by a complete information vacuum,
creating immense discontinuity in involvement across the different phases of co-creation.
Figure 3: Continuity of co-creation in the Daycare and School Departments
Figure 3: Continuity of co-creation in the Daycare and School Departments
Outcomes of Continuous Versus Discontinuous Co-creation
In the following, outcomes of co-creation in terms of innovation, ownership of solutions, and trust
among participants are analyzed. As indicated in table 1, below, the overall result of the study is
that continuous co-creation produces better outcomes than discontinuous co-creation. In the
following, these differences in outcomes are analyzed in relation to the variations in involvement in
the two cases.
Table 1: Outcomes of co-creation in continuous versus discontinuous co-creation
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
22
Outcomes of co-
creation processes
Continuous co-creation
(Daycare Department)
Discontinuous co-creation
(School Department)
Innovation
High:
Solutions reflect new ideas (within
the context) that are actually turned
into practice. Ideas are perceived as
highly contributing to solve the
problem at hand as well as value
adding.
Low:
Solutions are cosmetic, do not reflect
new ideas (within the context) and are
only vaguely turned into practice.
Ideas are not perceived as value adding
nor sufficient to solve the problem at
hand.
Ownership of solutions
High:
Ownership of the developed
solutions is high among all actors
also local actors who have not
participated directly in working
groups.
Low:
Ownership of solutions is low among
local actors and limited among central
actors.
Trust among
participants
High (increased):
Trust among local and central
actors has been strengthened and
they express enthusiasm about
engaging in future co-creation
processes.
Low (decreased):
Trust among local actors towards the
central level has been eroded and they
express scepticism about engaging in
future co-creation processes.
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
23
Innovation
The new supervision system in the Day Care Department introduces a number of new ideas which
are new in this context: While external supervision has exclusively been conducted by supervising
consultants in the old system, the new system allows for scaling and adjusting the supervision to
local conditions. In institutions that have continuously been performing well, peer leaders from
other day-care institutions in the municipality are now carrying out the supervision. The rationale
behind this change is partly to strengthen learning between institutions, but also to focus the limited
resources of the professional supervision consultants on the institutions with the most challenges.
Hence, the differentiated system of supervision allows for a tailored fit to local needs. In addition,
the local leader and an employee each spend one day making observations that are also incorporated
into the supervision process. Now we include three different perspectives, based on 24 hours of
individual observations (…) I really think this is a new way to create a stronger level of insight.
(Chief of Day-care). Hence, local involvement in collecting the information which is used as a basis
for the supervision is much higher. Another radical change is that in the new supervision system,
visits will be unannounced rather than planned, meaning that institutions must, in principle, be
ready to receive supervision at any time. According to the Chief of Day-care, this is an idea that she
would never have been able to introduce top down, but which became possible due to the joint
collaboration. Hence, the new supervision system, can be defined as innovative in terms of
introducing and realizing new ideas (within this specific context), as well as being perceived as
highly value-adding among key actors.
Perceptions of the innovativeness of solutions in the School Department are, on the other hand,
less convincing: Although a few respondents stress the value of establishing new forms of dialogue
between the local and the central levels, few or no concrete changes are experienced from the
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
24
perspective of the local level: ‘The dialogue at the workshop was fine. But if you ask me if it has
resulted in anything? I cannot really come up with anything….’ (Employee at school). This is
perhaps not surprising given the lack of involvement after the initial problem definition, which is
characterized by no information to local actors. At the central level among administrators working
with the selected problems, things appear a little more positive. A project leader says: I am actually
surprised how many problems we are working on.’ However, even the most involved central actors
convey the feeling, that solutions are not necessarily very innovative. Maybe it is mostly small
things. Cosmetic changes you could say. We are not really revolutionizing anything.’ (consultant in
the school administration). This is supported by a leader in the administration who fundamentally
questions, whether the process has fostered solutions that solve the problems at hand: ‘We have
spent so much energy on this. But I honestly don’t think that these small changes make a real
difference’. Changes are viewed as small, cosmetic or even absent, and despite some solutions
taking shape, both local and central actors perceive them as insufficient to actually solve the
identified challenges. Hence, the co-creation process has not produced innovation, defined as new,
realized and value-adding ideas within the context.
Ownership of solutions
The process in the Day-care Department has resulted in a new supervision system characterized by
widespread ownership both among local and central actors. An employee who was not directly
involved in the working groups, but who has tested the new supervision system, remarks: It really
gives us ownership of our professional practice, since the supervision involves us from the
beginning to the end’. Across all groups of actors, the new solution is perceived as supportive to the
professional work and both employees and leaders who have tested the system express enthusiasm
about working with it: ‘It has become something we can really use and not just a dusty report in the
cupboard’ (Leader in an institution). Despite sharper control, the survey results show that 9 out of
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
25
10 respondents agree (completely, highly or somewhat) that the new supervision system is better
than the old one (see table 1 below).
Table 2: Overall perception of the new supervision system versus the old one (Day Care Center).
Completely
agree
Mostly
agree
agree
disagree
Highly
disagree
Completely
disagree N=
“The new
supervision system
is, all in all, better
than the old one 25,0% 42,1%
22,4%
5,3% 2,6%
2,6%
76
Hence, a clear outcome in this case is that ownership of the new supervision concept is pronounced
among all involved actors, even local actors who have not been directly engaged in the process.
In the School Department, several local respondents feel that the dialogue about defining problems
in itself has been valuable. ‘Asking people was important. Perhaps more important than what
concretely came out of it afterwards. (local leader). However, despite ownership of the initial
dialogue, ownership of the developed solutions is generally low, mainly due to the fundamental lack
of even basic information about the faith of these. Local actors generally have no overview of
which solutions have actually been developed. At the central level, a number of consultants are
certainly committed to solutions, but even some of the central actors who play a decisive role in the
process express little ownership: ‘Honestly… I don’t have great engagement or ownership in this’
(central leader). In this and a few other cases, this lack of ownership reflects the opinion that
administrative burdens are not the most pressing problems in the organization. Hence,
organizational ownership of solutions is lacking at the local and limited even at the central level.
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
26
Trust Among Actors
Several local and central actors in the Day-care Department stress that the level of involvement in
this process exceeds anything they have experienced before. It is widely acknowledged that such
intense collaboration between local and central actors has created a stronger feeling of trust among
the involved actors: The more you collaborate, the closer you feel and the more trust we develop
for each other. This process has helped us to understand and respect each other’s roles more
(Supervision consultant)
Although levels of trust were perceived as relatively high before, several actors feel that the
continuously, engaged collaboration has tested but also strengthened trust even further. This is
especially true for vertical relations of trust between the central and local level.
The continuous, engaged dialogue in which all actors perspectives are explored has also contributed
to higher trust, because participants have gained insight into other actors needs and concerns.
‘Working together closely over time in the group really creates a new sense of security and trust’
(Employee). For instance, the process has enabled a central consultant to explain why a certain
documentation procedure that local actors found a waste of time is fundamental to securing
transparency in decision-making processes. Hence, engaged dialogue allows local actors to better
understand central actors’ concerns and motives (and vice versa), making it easier to trust them.
Both interviews and observations show that face-to-face dialogue and the lowering of power
distance are vital factors that contribute to strengthening trust.
In the School Department, on the other hand, several respondents feel that the initial, high levels of
involvement of all actors followed by silence has shaken trust at the local level. Local actors have
previously been invited to dialogues with the administration that have not been followed up by
concrete changes or even information about decisions. Such disappointing experiences are now
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
27
exacerbated by the total lack of information. ‘Why should I spend time on collaborating with them?
Nothing comes out of it. I have participated in so many meetings and nothing came out of it. Not that
we can see anyway. (Teacher). Hence, disappointed encounters with the administration reinforce
suspicions of being involved in a merely superficial pseudo-process aimed at legitimizing already
decided solutions. A central consultant explains it this way: If you don’t see results from previous
collaborations you are bound to be more distrustful about the next one. Hence, in this case initially
high involvement processes followed by low involvement end up eroding local actorstrust in the
central level as well as their willingness to engage in future co-creative processes.
Discussion
This article argues that outcomes of co-creation processes rely on the continuity of involvement
both throughout earlier and later stages of co-creation. However, other factors may also mediate the
outcomes of co-creation. The specific Danish, municipal context of this case-study must be taken
into consideration: Danish public employees are accustomed to high levels of discretion and
involvement and especially the municipalities enjoy extensive autonomy compared to most other
countries (Ladner, Keuffer, and Baldersheim 2016). In addition, the study focuses on co-creation
within pedagogical professions, which may have different norms regarding involvement than i.e.
health care professions (Noordegraf, 2017). Hence, reactions to dis-continuous involvement in this
study must be interpreted within this specific context of a high-involvement culture. Generalizations
of the results therefor require more research to further test, discuss and validate the results within
other national, sectorial and professional contexts.
While the two cases differ in regards to involvement in later phases of co-creation, other differences
may also explain variations in outcomes of co-creation. The scope of the co-creation in the School
Department has a much broader focus compared to the relatively narrow problem of supervision in
the Day-care Department. Arguably, creating ownership to solutions may be easier with a clear
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
28
rather than with a more diffused scope. Disappointing outcomes in the school centre could hence,
be explained by a higher complexity of the task, which is known to create barriers to generating
outcomes in terms of innovation (Torugsa and Arundel 2016). In addition, lack of motivation
among central leader in the chain of command as well as absence of feedback loops, could also be
contributing factors eroding conditions for innovation (Demircioglu and Audretsch 2017).
Regarding different outcomes in terms of trust among participants, existing levels of trust must also
be taken into account. While lacking comparable data on levels of previous trust in the two cases,
the qualitative data indicates a history of former trust breaches in the school centre, which may also
play a part when explaining the dramatic erosion of trust in this case (Vlaar, van den Bosch and
Volberda 2007, Möllering 2005). However, the different power distances and involvement levels in
the two cases are still likely to contribute significantly to the dramatic differences in trust
development among participants (Rousseau and Sitkin 1998; Six 2013).
While early and engaged involvement constitute clear ideals in the conceptual framework of
continuous co-creation presented in this study, a central question is whether all wicked problems in
the public sector lend themselves to such increased involvement? In a democratic system, problems
may be politically defined or solutions decided at higher administrative levels, effectively leaving
space for co-creation in only some phases of the process. Is it possible to ‘fenceco-creation into
certain phases without encountering problems such as those illustrated in this case study? Arguably,
clear communication about the limits of involvement, as well as aligning expectations among
formal power holders and low-power actors, may provide better conditions for discontinuous co-
creation. This and other dilemmas of continuous co-creation constitute important questions for
further research.
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
29
Another challenge is that co-creation involves extensive resource consumption for facilitation,
coordination and participation (Agranoff 2016). Co-creation may produce ‘value for money’, but
requires investment of resources (Bovaird & Loeffler, 2012). Meetings and dialogue without added
value may seem like victimless crimes, but they draw resources from service provision that can only
be compensated for by significant service or quality improvement (Brandsen et al., 2018; Steen,
Brandsen, & Verschuere, 2018). On the one hand, this study supports that concern, as continuous
co-creation certainly requires more resources than discontinuous co-creation. On the other hand, the
findings in this study emphasize the positive outcomes of continuous co-creation, which could also
raise questions about the reasons for diverging, empirical results regarding the outcomes of co-
creation (Agranoff, 2016; Brandsen et al., 2018; Triantafillou, 2019; Voorberg, Bekkers, &
Tummers, 2014; Voorberg et al., 2015). Hence, future studies are encouraged to analyse diverging
outcome of co-creations, from a continuity perspective to nuance the findings in this study as well
as the debate about outcomes of co-creation within the literature.
Analysing co-creation in terms of both the level and time of involvement provides a more nuanced
understanding of how to support successful co-creation. For policy makers, the results of this study
underlines the importance of carefully considering and planning co-creation processes in a
continuity perspective. The ideal of engaged dialogue throughout all phases of co-creation means
that policy makers should be attentive of how initial high involvement practices are followed
through as outcomes hinges on the continuity of involvement. Even if processes do not allow
engaged dialogue throughout all phases, the model can help policy makers to articulate this, create
transparency in the process and perhaps adjust expectations among the involved actors. Establishing
a common language about continuity in co-creation may also be beneficial in networks
collaborating on wicked problems, as a tool for discussing the possibilities of securing involvement
of various, relevant actors throughout the co-creation process. For administrators facilitating such
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
30
networks, a continuity perspective may also serve a useful tool to discuss how competing values in
processes of co-creation can be balanced (Sørensen & Bentzen, 2019). Hence, the results of this
study may spur critical dialogue among practioners about how best to facilitate continuous co-
creation.
Conclusion
While it is broadly recognized that co-creation calls for early and extensive involvement, the
importance of involvement at later stages has received less attention in the literature. This article
develops a continuity perspective on patterns of involvement in co-creation, and proposes that the
outcomes of co-creation in terms of innovation, ownership to solutions and trust among
participants, are conditioned by continuous involvement throughout all phases of co-creation. The
model is applied to two case studies from a Danish municipality that is actively pursuing co-
creation reforms. While both cases are characterized by high initial involvement, they differ
dramatically in levels of involvement in later stages of co-creation, allowing comparison of
outcomes of continuous versus discontinuous involvement. The study shows that outcomes in terms
of innovation, ownership of solutions and trust among participants are strengthened by continuous
involvement throughout the later stages of co-creation. Discontinuous involvement, on the other
hand, fail to produce innovation, ownership to solutions and even risks hampering existing trust due
to disappointed expectations and suspicions of pseudo-involvement among low-power actors.
Hence, discontinuous involvement risks eroding not only trust, but also the future conditions for co-
creation.
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
31
References
Agranoff, R. 2016. “The Other Side of Managing in Networks. In The Challenges of Collaboration
in Environmental Governance, 81–107. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Ansell, C., and A. Gash. 2008. “Collaborative Governance in Theory and Practice.” Journal of
Public Administration Research 8 (4): 543–71.
Ansell, C., and J. Torfing. 2020. Public Governance as Co-Creation: A Strategy for Revitalizing
Public Administration and Rejuvenating Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Arnstein, S.R. 1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation.” Journal of the American Institute of
Planners 35 (4): 216–24.
Arundel, Anthony, Carter Bloch, and Barry Ferguson. 2019. “Advancing Innovation in the Public
Sector: Aligning Innovation Measurement with Policy Goals.” Research Policy 48(3): 789–98.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0048733318302956.
Bason, C. 2018. Leading public sector innovation: Co-creating for a better society. Bristol: Policy
press.
Bason, C. 2010. Leading Public Sector Innovation. Bristol: Policy Press
Bentzen, T.Ø, Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. 2020. ”Strengthening public service production,
administrative problem solving, and political leadership through co-creation of innovative
public value outcomes?” Innovation Journal, 25(1).
Bommert, B. 2010. “Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector.” International Public
Management Network 11 (1): 15–33.
Bovaird, Tony, and Elke Loeffler. 2012. “From Engagement to Co-Production: The Contribution of
Users and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value.” VOLUNTAS: International Journal
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
32
of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations 23 (4): 1119–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-
012-9309-6.
Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. 2018. “Definitions of Co-production and Co-creation” In Co-
Production and Co-Creation Engaging Citizens in Public Services, edited by T. Brandsen, T.
Steen, and B. Verschue, 258–65. London, New York: Routledge.
Brandsen, T., B. Verschuere, and T. Steen. 2018. Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging
Citizens in Public Services. London, New York: Taylor and Francis.
Brandsen, Taco, and Marlies Honingh. 2016. “Distinguishing Different Types of Coproduction: A
Conceptual Analysis Based on the Classical Definitions.” Public Administration Review 76
(3): 427–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12465.
Bueren, E.M. van, E.H. Klijn, and J. F.M. Koppenjan. 2003. “Dealing with Wicked Problems in
Networks: Analyzing an Environmental Debate from at Network Perspective.” Journal of Public
Administration Research and Theory 13 (2): 193–212.
Bugge, M. M. and C. W. Bloch. 2016. “Between bricolage and breakthroughs—framing the many
faces of public sector innovation”. Public Money & Management 36 (4):281-288.
Bryson, J., Sancino, A., Benington, J., and Sørensen, E. 2017. “Towards a multi-actor theory of
public value co-creation”. Public Management Review, 19(5): 640–654.
https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2016.1192164
Ciger, B. 2001. “Multi-organizational, multisector and multicommunity organizations: Setting the
research agenda.” In Getting results through collaboration: Networks and network structures
for public policy and management . Edited by M. P. Mandell, 71–85. Westport, CA: Quorum
Books.
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
33
Coletti, Angela L., Karen L. Sedatole, and Kristy L. Towry. 2005. “The Effect of Control Systems
on Trust and Cooperation in Collaborative Environments.” The Accounting Review 80 (2):
477–500. https://doi.org/10.2308/accr.2005.80.2.477.
Demircioglu, M. A. and Audretsch, D. B. 2017. “Conditions for innovation in public sector
organizations”. Research policy 46(9): 1681-1691.
Demircioglu, M.A, and D. B. Audretsch. 2020. “Conditions for complex innovations: evidence
from public organizations”. The Journal of Technology Transfer 45 (3):820–843.
Emerson, K., and T. Nabatchi. 2015. Collaborative Governance Regimes. Washington D.C.:
Georgetown University Press.
Emerson, Kirk, and Tina Nabatchi. 2015. “Evaluating the Productivity of Collaborative Governance
Regimes: A Performance Matrix.” Public Performance & Management Review 38 (4): 717–
47. https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2015.1031016.
Fledderus, Joost. 2015. “Does User Co-Production of Public Service Delivery Increase Satisfaction
and Trust? Evidence From a Vignette Experiment.” International Journal of Public
Administration 38 (9): 642–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2014.952825.
Fledderus, Joost. 2016. “User Co-production of Public Service delivery: Effects on Trust? Public
Management Review,(16,3), 424-443.
Fledderus, Joost. 2018. “The Effect of Co-Production on Trust.” In Co-Production and Co-Creation
Engaging Citizens in Public Services, edited by T. Brandsen, T. Steen, and B. Verschue, 258–
65. London, New York: Routledge.
Flyvbjerg, B. 2006. “Five Misunderstandings about Case-Study Research.” Qualitative Inquiry 12
(2): 219–45.
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
34
Frey, B.S. and R. Jegen. 2001. “Motivation Crowding Theory.” Journal of Economic Surveys 63
(64): 131–53.
Geissel, B., and K. Newton, eds. 2012. Evaluating Democratic Innovations. London: Routledge.
Gray, B. 1989. Collaboration: Finding common ground for multi-party problems. San Francisco:
Jossey-Bass
Hartley, J. 2005. “Innovation in governance and public service: Past and present. ” Public Money &
Management 25(1): 27-34.
Hartley, Jean, Eva Sørensen, and Jacob Torfing. 2013. “Collaborative Innovation: A Viable
Alternative to Market Competition and Organizational Entrepreneurship.” Public
Administration Review 73 (6): 821–30.
Hill, M. 2009. “Policy Formulation.” In The Public Policy Proces, edited by M. Hill, 5., 171–93.
Herthfordshire: Pearson Education Limited.
Horne, M., and T. Shirley. 2009. Co-Production in Public Services: A New Partnership with
Citizens. London: Cabinet Office, The Strategy Unit.
Keast, R., Brown, K., & Mandell, M. 2007. “Getting the right mix: Unpacking integration meanings
and strategies”. International Public Management Journal 10(1), 9-33.
Keast, R., and Mandell, M. 2014. “The collaborative push: moving beyond rhetoric and gaining
evidence.” Journal of management & governance 18(1), 9-28.
Kingdon, John W. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston: Little Brown.
Kooiman, J. 1993. Modern Governance: New Government-Society Interactions. London: Sage
Publications Ltd.
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
35
Koontz, T.M., and C.W. Thomas. 2006. “What Do We Know and Need to Know about the
Environmental Outcomes of Collaborative Management?” Public Administration Review 66
(81): 111–121.
Ladner, A., N. Keuffer, and H. Baldersheim. 2016. “Measuring Local Autonomy in 39
Countries (1990–2014).” Regional and Federal Studies 26 (3): 321–357. doi:10.1080/
13597566.2016.1214911.
Lawson, H. 2002. “Improving conceptual clarity, accuracy and precision and facilitating more
coherent institutional designs”. In The contribution of interprofessional collaboration and
comprehensive services to teaching and learning edited by M. Brabeck & M. Walsh, 30-45.
The National Society for the Study of Education Year-Book, University of Chicago Press
Moore, M., and J. Hartley. 2008. “Innovations in Governance.” Public Management Review, 10(1):
3–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719030701763161.
Möllering, G. 2006. Trust: Reason, Routine, Reflexivity. Oxford, Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Nabatchi, T. 2012. “Putting the ‘Public’ Back in Public Values Research: Designing Participation to
Identify and Respond to Values.” Public Administration Review, 72 (5): 699–708.
Nabatchi, T., A. Sancino, and M. Sicilia. 2017. “Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The
Who, When and What of Coproduction.” Public Administration Review 77 (5): 766–76.
Noordegraaf, M. 2007. “From ‘Pure’ to ‘Hybrid’ Professionalism: Present-Day Professionalism in
Ambiguous Public Domains.” Administration & Society 39 (6): 761–85.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399707304434.
Norris, P. 2011. Democratic Deficit: Critical Citizens Revisited. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
36
Press.
OECD. 2011. OECD Public Governance Reviews Together for Better Public Services: Partnering
with Citizens and Civil Society. OECD Publishing.
Osborne, S. 2006. “The New Public Governance?” Public Management Review 8 (3): 377–87.
Pestoff, Victor, Taco Brandsen, and Bram Verschuere. 2012. New Public Governance, the Third
Sector and Co-Production. Edited by Victor Pestoff, Taco Brandsen, and Bram Verschuere.
New York/ London: Routledge.
Rittel, Horst, and Melvin Webber. 1973. “Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning.” Policy
Sciences 4 (2): 155–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01405730.
Rousseau, D. M., and S. B. Sitkin. 1998. “Not so Different after All: A Cross-Discipline View of
Trust.” Academy of Management Review 23 (3): 393–404.
Sabatier, P. A., and D. Mazmanian. 1980. “The Implementation of Public Policy: A Framework of
Analysis.” Policy Studies Journal 8 (4): 538–60.
Six, F. 2013. “Trust in Regulatory Relations”. Public Manangement Review 15(2):163-85
Smith, Graham. 2009. Democratic Innovations: Designing Institutions for Citizen Participation. 3.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sørensen, E., and J. Torfing. 2011. “Enhancing Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector.”
Administration & Society 43: 842–68.
Sørensen, E., and T. Bentzen. 2020. “Public administrators in interactive democracy: a multi-
paradigmatic approach”. Local Government Studies, 46(1), 139-162.
Steen, T., T. Brandsen, and B. Verschuere. 2018. “The Dark Side of Co-Creation and Co-
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
37
Production Seven Evils.” In Co-Production and Co-Creation Engaging Citizens in Public
Services, edited by T. Brandsen, B. Verschuere, and T. Steen. New York: Routledge.
Stickdorn, M., and J. Schneider. 2012. This Is Service Design Thinking : Basics, Tools, Cases.
Edited by Marc. Stickdorn and Jakob. Schneider. 5. printin. Amsterdam: BIS.
Thiel, S. van, and K. Yesilkagit. 2011. “Good Neighbours or Distant Friends?” Public Management
Review 13 (6): 783–802.
Torfing, J., E. Sørensen, and A. Røiseland. 2019. “Transforming the Public Sector into an Arena for
Co-Creation: Barriers, Drivers, Benefits and Ways Forward.” Administration & Society 51 (5):
795–825.
Torfing, Jacob, and Christopher Ansell. 2017. “Strengthening Political Leadership and Policy
Innovation through the Expansion of Collaborative Forms of Governance.” Public
Management Review 19 (1): 37–54.
Torugsa, N., and Arundel, A. 2016. “Complexity of innovation in the public sector: A workgroup-
level analysis of related factors and outcomes.” Public Management Review 18(3), 392-416.
Triantafillou, P. 2019. “Trapped in the Complexity Bowl? Public Governance And the Liberal Art
of Governing.” International Journal of Public Administration, 1–9.
Vesnic-Alujevic, Lucia, Eckhard Stoermer, Jennifer-Ellen Rudkin, Fabiana Scapolo, Lucy Kimbell,
and Julia Ochsenhirt. 2019. The Future of Government 2030+ : A Citizen Centric Perspective
on New Government Models. EUR (Luxembourg), 29664. Luxembourg: Publications Office.
https://doi.org/10.2760/007284.
Vlaar, P. W. L., F. A. J. Van den Bosch, and H. W. Volberda. 2007. “On the Evolution of Trust,
Distrust, and Formal Coordination and Control in Interorganizational Relationships: Toward
Accepted for publication in Public Management Review, June 2020.
38
an Integrative Framework.” Group & Organization Management 32(4): 407–28.
Voorberg, W., .J.J.M. Bekkers, and L.G. Tummers. 2014. “Co-Creation in Social Innovation: A
Comparative Case-Study on the Influential Factors and Outcomes of Co-Creation.” Ottowa:
IRSPM.
Voorberg, W. H., V. J. 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): 1333–57.
Voorberg, W., Bekkers, V., Flemig, S., Timeus, K., Tonurist, P., & Tummers, L. 2017. "Does co-
creation impact public service delivery? The importance of state and governance
traditions." Public Money & Management 37(5): 365-372.
Voorberg, William. 2017. “Co-Creation and Co-Production as a Strategy for Public Service
Innovation: A Study to Their Appropriateness in a Public Sector Context.” Rotterdam:
Erasmus University.
Warren, M E. 2009. “Governance-Driven Democratization.” Critical Policy Studies 3 (1): 3–13.
... Based on design-thinking literature (Bason and Austin 2021;Brown and Wyatt 2010) and application in co-design literature (Bentzen 2020;Trischler, Dietrich, and Rundle-Thiele 2019), we distinguish a problem-definition (inspiration) stage from a solution-development (ideation) stage in co-design. We have three innovation prototypes designed per topic (1) by a group of dedicated professionals only; (2) by users co-defining the problem with professionals (inspiration) but professionals developing the solution (ideation); and (3) by users and professionals both co-defining the problem and co-developing the solution. ...
... For example, Lindenmeier et al. (2021) study client satisfaction in day-care services in relation to user involvement in service delivery, such as partners volunteering as cleaning staff, helping with the planning and holding of celebrations, and providing management advice. Recent studies have demonstrated how user involvement in the co-delivery process results in perceptional benefits for the participants like issue awareness, trust, and satisfaction (Bentzen 2020;Danaher et al. 2023;Jo and Nabatchi 2019;Lindenmeier et al. 2021;Stokburger-Sauer et al. 2016). Codelivery, however, is beyond the scope of this study, which assesses the benefits that non-participants attribute to preimplemented co-designed innovation prototypes, aiming to answer calls for specifically quantifying co-design outcomes (Antons and Breidbach 2018;Bovaird et al. 2021;Voorberg, Bekkers, and Tummers 2015). ...
... This innovation quality argument resonates in frequent calls for incorporating users' needs and context-of-use information in the innovation process (Dunphy and Herbig 1995;Magnusson, Matthing, and Kristensson 2003;Rexfelt and Hiort af Ornäs 2009;Von Hippel 2005a). In addition to this needs-based information, users can also improve the innovation quality by providing solution-based information, creative thinking, and recombination of remote knowledge elements (Bentzen 2020;Poetz and Schreier 2012;Schweisfurth 2017;Trischler et al. 2018). In sum, the central argument is that user involvement can increase the innovation acceptance by providing user needs' and context-of-use information and fostering creative thinking, which can enhance innovation quality. ...
Article
Full-text available
This experimental study examines user involvement in the co‐design stage of public sector innovations in relation to citizen acceptance of these innovations. We analyze 603 citizen evaluations of 12 co‐designed innovation prototypes. Results show that involving a few users can benefit many citizens. Partially co‐designed innovation prototypes, with users co‐defining the problem but professionals developing the solution, are perceived by citizens to be of higher quality than prototypes developed by professionals only, resulting in greater innovation acceptance in terms of perceived usefulness and ease of use. However, for fully co‐designed innovation prototypes, we do not find these positive results.
... To address some of these issues, this research aims to develop a design process that establishes guidelines for building community solar solutions applicable to emerging economies. The process should guarantee economic, social sustainability, and be replicable in different sites in Colombia and Latin America, encouraging cooperation, commitment, and contributions from possible stakeholders through bottom-up processes, which are used to help innovation spaces yield better project results (Bentzen, 2020). Tools, such as co-creation, allow achieving these characteristics. ...
... Co-creation uses collective creativity to create value, innovative ideas, and development opportunities (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). In addition, when citizens actively participate in co-creation, an impulse is generated to revitalize voluntary participation and strengthen social cohesion (Bentzen, 2020). ...
... Cocreation is a problem-solving tool (Sánchez & Prada, 2021) that promotes reactivating and strengthening voluntary participation and social cohesion (Sanders & Stappers, 2008). Likewise, co-creation can stimulate commitment among key actors for better project results (Bentzen, 2020). It is about creating an optimal environment in which continuous dialogue and personalized experiences facilitate the identification of obstacles or inconveniences that may arise. ...
Article
Full-text available
Las comunidades energéticas son esquemas colectivos de generación de energía limpia en los que los ciudadanos se organizan para generar, almacenar y gestionar recursos energéticos distribuidos, principalmente energía solar. Aunque existen pocas comunidades energéticas en el contexto latinoamericano, en comparación con el número de casos reportados en Europa, existe un interés particular en explorar modelos de gobernanza para el autoconsumo comunitario a partir de fuentes de energía solar conectadas a la red que consideren las condiciones culturales locales. Este trabajo describe una metodología de co-creación, basada en diversas técnicas existentes, para ser utilizada como herramienta para el diseño de modelos comunitarios de energía de abajo hacia arriba. Esta propuesta integra dos técnicas de resolución de problemas: el pensamiento de diseño y el modelo 4D. La metodología fue probada en talleres de creación colaborativa, tanto con actores como con residentes de la Comuna 13 en Medellín, Colombia, para identificar los elementos para crear una comunidad de energía solar en el contexto colombiano, asegurando la sostenibilidad económica y social. Como resultado, los participantes definieron un esquema de funcionamiento para la comunidad solar que incluía: un modelo de gobernanza y toma de decisiones, compromisos de participación, estrategias de identidad, comunicación, educación y un fondo comunitario para compartir los beneficios del excedente energético. Resultó evidente que la confianza y el compromiso entre los facilitadores y las comunidades, junto con las estrategias de educación energética en la gestión participativa de los proyectos comunitarios, son esenciales para construir con éxito comunidades solares colaborativas.
... In addition, there are several methods for involving users in innovation activities. Some include more intense interactive involvement where users can actively discuss innovation characteristics with innovation designers, while others are largely or entirely non-interactive (Bentzen, 2022). Examples of non-interactive methods are surveys or observational studies of how individuals use innovation prototypes. ...
... Interactive methods include "participatory" innovation, "co-design" (Trischler et al., 2019) and "co-creation" (Voorberg et al., 2015). In contrast to non-interactive methods, they provide a forum for users to discuss their experiences with designers or government employees who can make decisions or influence the characteristics of an innovation (Bentzen, 2022;Engen et al., 2021), although the influence of users on decision making can be limited by the attitudes of public employees to user input (Dell'Era & Landoni, 2014;Hansen & Fuglsang, 2020;Torfing et al., 2019). Interactive methods include the active participation of users in brainstorming sessions, idea generation workshops, focus groups, or one-on-one conversations with service designers Trischler & Scott, 2016). ...
... Future survey research on user involvement should evaluate differences in how users are involved by the stage of innovation development (for instance for idea generation or prototype development), the level of influence that users have on decision making [as investigated in case studies by Fuglsang and Hansen (2022), who report a low level of influence], and the intensity of user involvement. As an example of the latter, both Bentzen (2022) and Engen et al. (2021) identify four levels of employee involvement in innovation that could be adapted in a survey context to measure the intensity of user involvement. ...
Article
Full-text available
Theories of a service or public sector logic stress that involving users in developing public sector innovations will produce better outcomes, but outcomes also could be influenced by the type of user involvement. We evaluate the relationship between interactive and non-interactive methods of involving users in innovation activities, along with six other factors, on a sample of management reported post-implementation outcomes from public sector innovations. A set-theoretic analysis is applied separately for service and process innovations to identify combinations (recipes) of eight factors associated with positive outcomes. Both interactive and non-interactive user involvement is associated with positive outcomes, but such involveme is always combined with other innovation capabilities or senior management support for innovation. The results have practical implications for managers for how to assemble resources to improve innovation outcomes.
... Research gives public organizations limited advice on how to proceed. Despite the rapid growth in academic and practitioner interest in co-creation, both frameworks for measuring effects and impacts and substantive or rigid assessments of outcomes and effects of co-creation are few and far between (Ansell & Gash 2008;Vershuere et al. 2018;Voorberg et al. 2014), with some notable exceptions (Bentzen 2022;Loeffler & Bovaird 2018;Voorberg et al. 2014). Critics thus argue that the optimistic claims made by the proponents of co-creation regarding more efficient, higher quality public service delivery, democratization and trust in government can in reality mask several potential failures and pitfalls . ...
... Loeffler and Bovaird (2018), studying co-production, build on this logic when suggesting the measurement of performance output and outcome. Another approach to the performance measurement of collaborative governance and co-creation is to highlight the value of the co-creation activity in itself by qualitatively measuring impacts: how co-creation improves accountability, trust, fairness, equity, responsiveness, social capital, democracy and so on (Bentzen 2022). ...
... This process, which moves beyond tokenism or instrumental consultations to collaborative processes of frequent, bidirectional, and transparent dialogue, is typically defined as the active involvement of all relevant and affected stakeholders from the articulation of problems to the design, implementation, and evaluation of services and solutions [4][5][6]. While the stakeholders can be patients, professionals, informal carers, researchers and policymakers, the value of co-creation arises through interactions which have the potential to foster ownership and innovation in the face of complexities [7]. ...
Article
Full-text available
Introduction: While co-creation has emerged as a promising approach to address complex problems in health and care systems, few examples exist where scholars have examined what separate stakeholder groups do to enhance their potential to engage in collaborative processes of joint problem-solving. The current study seeks to bridge this knowledge gap by providing empirical insights into the challenges of one stakeholder enacting ‘pre-creation’ to reform care services for older adults in the rural Swedish north through the Storuman Cares 2050 initiative. Methods: This case study draws upon data collected through extensive notetaking of 23 core group meetings within Storuman Cares 2050. The notes were summarized into a database, which also included reflections on how previous experiences with other projects should inform progress as well as deliberations on engagement with co-creation partners. The data was thematically analyzed with themes developed through an inductive approach. Results: Three themes were developed. The first one, ‘getting our house in order’, makes explicit the values, principles, and approaches that a stakeholder might bring to a co-creation process. The second theme, ‘starting close to home’, describes the value of supporting and stimulating internal engagements through demonstrating a commitment and capacity for change. The third theme, ‘reaching out’, details the importance of, but challenges to, engaging with external stakeholders. Conclusion: This case study bridges an important knowledge gap by detailing how one stakeholder navigated past experiences and the history of relationships with diverse stakeholders while trying to support internal engagements and other local voices when aspiring to co-create. By introducing the concept of ‘pre-creation’ as encompassing the enhancement of an organization’s potential to engage in complex processes of joint problem-solving, the findings provide a stimulus for scholars to further explore what separate stakeholder groups do to enable them to co-create.
... By including actors with diverging interests and motivations in the policymaking process, potential conflicts can be avoided before they arise, and compromise can be found. To do so and achieve the most valuable outcomes, ideally, cocreation would be continuous (Bentzen, 2022), allowing citizens to participate in all stages of the process, from the identification of problems to the design of solutions, their implementation, and evaluation (Nabatchi et al., 2017). ...
Article
Purpose Researchers have been exploring the consequences of the hedonic adaptation process at length. This phenomenon is characterized by the reduction of pleasure with consumption experiences over time. Meanwhile, co-creation initiatives seem to be gaining traction in brand strategies. However, little is known about how individuals experience the co-creation effects in consumption. The purpose of this study is to analyse the impact of consumer co-creation experiences on predicting hedonic adaptation. Also, it aims to provide insights into the emotional aspects of consumption. Design/methodology/approach Three mixed-design experimental studies were conducted to explore the effects of co-creation on consumer hedonic adaptation, affective forecasting and emotional responses. Study 1 and Study 2 were conducted online with American participants. Study 3 was conducted in a laboratory setting in Brazil. Findings The research demonstrated that individuals predict that the path to consumption adaptation will be longer when co-creating their products co-create. However, this effect varies depending on the type of product. As for the emotional aspect, consumers attribute more positive emotions than negative ones in the context of co-creation. Research limitations/implications This study manipulated different conditions considering specific product types. Future research should apply this framework to other products and services to confirm the generalization of the study’s findings. Also, the authors encourage future studies that explore emotions in different co-creation scenarios. Practical implications Elucidating how co-creation impacts consumers’ hedonic adaptation empowers companies to leverage co-creation to cultivate positive consumer attitudes and brand loyalty. Marketing campaigns can highlight the emotional benefits of ownership and personalization. It also provides a sustainable perspective for companies, which seeks consumers who remain present over time and trust the company. Furthermore, co-creation can be used strategically for innovation management. By co-creating limited-edition trial products, companies can involve new customers, foster a sense of ownership and potentially mitigate hedonic adaptation, while gathering valuable insights for new product development. Originality/value This research advances the limited literature on co-creation and customer hedonic adaptation, which lies at the interface between consumer behaviour and product development. It explores how product co-creation affects consumers’ predictions and shopping experiences concerning pleasure decrease, including product value and company feedback. Additionally, it examines the role of emotions in co-creation and hedonic adaptation. This research contributes by demonstrating the impact of co-creation on adaptation, affective forecasting and emotional responses during consumption.
Article
IMPACT Drawing on a survey of six European countries, this article examines how living labs (LLs) and user engagement methods influence public innovation outcomes. Based on econometric empirical evidence, the authors provide key insights for public sector managers at all levels (national, regional, local), emphasizing that active user involvement leads to better innovation outcomes, particularly those that go beyond the innovation process and influence how users perceive or benefit from public services (for example, by increasing user service quality). The authors recommend prioritizing value-creation functions that enable the most active user involvement methods based on co-creation over internal-focused processes. Additionally, they highlight the importance of supporting LLs as methodologically robust, sustainable, long-term innovation infrastructures, rather than tying them to short-term and limited resourcing projects. These conclusions are valid across different countries, varying sizes of public units, and levels of government (municipal or national). ABSTRACT Public living labs (LLs) promote collaboration to tackle societal challenges. However, their success cannot be taken for granted, as user engagement methodologies matter. Drawing on data from a survey of six European countries, the article explores how LLs and user engagement methods are connected with public innovation outcomes. The authors conclude that methods with higher user involvement based on co-creation tend to produce better innovation outcomes, and the most relevant are those directly related to user experience versus cost or other internaloriented outcomes. The conclusions hold across different countries, varying sizes of public units, and levels of government (municipal or national). The article also provides both policy implications when designing and implementing LLs in public sector, and managerial implications to promote effective public value creation in collaboration with users, citizens, or organizations. FREE ONLINE ACCESS TO THE ARTICLE: https://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/5C36DPB2QCSYN2USNK3V/full?target=10.1080/09540962.2024.2425423
Article
Purpose This paper looks at how stakeholders co-create value at mega-events from a service ecosystem perspective. Despite the growing interest, little is known about how value is co-created through such initiatives for individual stakeholders and the community. Design/methodology/approach Drawing on institutional and stakeholder theory, the study focuses on Cortina 2021, the World Ski Championships held in Italy in February 2021. It investigates how multiple actors co-create value within a service ecosystem through qualitative interviews with key stakeholders combined with the analysis of official documents and reports. Findings The research established that key stakeholders were willing to get involved with Cortina 2021 if they recognised the value which could be co-created. Such an ecosystem requires a focal organisation with a clear regulative and normative framework and a common cultural basis. The latter helped resilience in the extraordinary circumstances of Cortina 2021 and safeguarded long-term impacts, even though the expected short-term ones were compromised. Practical implications From a managerial point of view, the evidence from Cortina 2021 shows how a clear strategy with well-defined stakeholder engagement mechanisms can facilitate value co-creation in service ecosystems. Moreover, when regulative and normative elements are blurred because of an extraordinary circumstance, resource integration and value creation processes need to be entrusted to those cultural elements that characterise an ecosystem. Originality/value The study takes an ecosystemic approach to mega-events to explore value creation for the whole community at the macro level, not only at the individual or organisational level, even during a crisis, which greatly impaired the preparation and running of the event.
Article
Full-text available
For some time, academics have been discussing possible alternatives to new public management under headings such as network governance, collaborative governance, new public governance or, simply, public governance. This article seeks to better understand and critically discuss the rationalities of government supporting public governance. It argues that public governance is informed by a specific liberal rationality of government that differs from both classical liberalism and neoliberalism. Moreover, the diagnosis of societal complexity and concern for democratic self-government underpinning public governance may entail the neglect of structural social problems, such as economic inequality, and the disqualification of other relevant forms of public intervention.
Article
Full-text available
There is sufficient evidence, drawn from surveys of innovation in the public sector and cognitive testing interviews with public sector managers, to develop a framework for measuring public sector innovation. Although many questions that are covered in the Oslo Manual guidelines for measuring innovation in the private sector can be applied with some modifications to the public sector, public sector innovation surveys need to meet policy needs that require collecting additional types of data. Policy to support public sector innovation requires data on how public sector organizations innovate and how a strategic management approach to innovation can influence the types of innovations that are developed. Both issues require innovations surveys to delve deeply into the innovation processes and strategies that are used by public sector managers. Implementation of the measurement framework proposed in this paper would open up opportunities for a new, policy-relevant research program on public sector innovation.
Article
Full-text available
Despite the growing interest in understanding innovative activities, an important limitation of the current literature on innovation—both public and private—is an assumption that innovative activity is a homogeneous phenomenon. However, most innovative activities are heterogeneous in nature. One way of characterizing innovation heterogeneity is the complexity of innovations. Using data from public organizations, this paper is one of the first studies to develop a framework for and provide an empirical test of the main influences on innovation complexity within the public sector context. The empirical evidence suggests that employees’ innovative behavior and cooperation, along with collaborating with important external sources and the ability to work in a complex environment, are positively associated with complex innovations in the public sector, suggesting that the influences on complex innovations span the individual, work group, and external environment levels. However, an organization’s leadership quality and innovation climate do not have any statistical effect on complex innovations.
Book
We need new governance solutions to help us improve public policies and services, solve complex societal problems, strengthen social communities and reinvigorate democracy. By changing how government engages with citizens and stakeholders, co-creation provides an attractive and feasible approach to governance that goes beyond the triptych of public bureaucracy, private markets and self-organized communities. Inspired by the successful use of co-creation for product and service design, this book outlines a broad vision of co-creation as a strategy of public governance. Through the construction of platforms and arenas to facilitate co-creation, this strategy can empower local communities, enhance broad-based participation, mobilize societal resources and spur public innovation while building ownership for bold solutions to pressing problems and challenges. The book details how to use co-creation to achieve goals. This exciting and innovative study combines theoretical argument with illustrative empirical examples, visionary thinking and practical recommendations.
Article
Currently, interactive forms of democracy that bring local politicians into dialogue and collaboration with relevant and affected citizens are mushrooming. While some research has investigated how interactive democracy affects citizens and politicians, we know little about what interactive democracy means for public administrators. This article presents the results of a case study of role perceptions and coping strategies among public administrators assisting a new type of interactive political committee in two Nordic municipalities. Guided by a multi-paradigmatic conceptual framework featuring public administrators’ roles and coping strategies in interactive governance, the study shows that individual public administrators identify with different administrative roles, and that political and administrative leadership sentiments condition their choice of coping strategies. Moreover, the coping strategy that public administrators select to handle intra- and inter-paradigmatic role dilemmas can have dire consequences for the interplay between interactive democracy and local representative government.
Chapter
This chapter develops a comprehensive and empirically applicable concept to measure the autonomy of local government in the 39 European countries covered. To this end, we first discuss already existing measurements and typologies of local autonomy and decentralisation. We argue that existing data on fiscal decentralisation only tells part of the story and does not capture the role and discretion of local government in an adequate manner. Subsequently, we present our methodology to measure local autonomy, the coding scheme we developed to code the different countries as well as the different variables used. The chapter contains also information about the organisation of the whole project, the different experts involved and the method applied to gather comparative data.