This article presents a systematic review of 122 articles and books (1987–2013) of co-creation/co-production with citizens in public innovation It analyses (a) the objectives of co-creation and co-production, (b) its influential factors and (c) the outcomes of co-creation and co-production processes It shows that most studies focus on the identification of influential factors, while hardly any attention is paid to the outcomes Future studies could focus on outcomes of co-creation/co-production processes Furthermore, more quantitative studies are welcome, given the qualitative, case study, dominance in the field We conclude with a research agenda to tackle methodological, theoretical and empirical lacunas

/pdf/a-systematic-review-of-co-creation-and-co-production-4yz7gvaty1.pdf

A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey

A new public administration movement is emerging to move beyond traditional public administration and New Public Management. The new movement is a response to the challenges of a networked, multisector, no-one-wholly-in-charge world and to the shortcomings of previous public administration approaches. In the new approach, values beyond efficiency and effectiveness—and especially democratic values—are prominent. Government has a special role to play as a guarantor of public values, but citizens as well as businesses and nonprofit organizations are also important as active public problem solvers. The article highlights value-related issues in the new approach and presents an agenda for research and action to be pursued if the new approach is to fulfill its promise.

Public Value Governance: Moving Beyond Traditional Public Administration and the New Public Management

This article brings together empirical academic research on public sector innovation. Via a systematic literature review, we investigate 181 articles and books on public sector innovation, published between 1990 and 2014. These studies are analysed based on the following themes: (1) the definitions of innovation, (2) innovation types, (3) goals of innovation, (4) antecedents of innovation and (5) outcomes of innovation. Based upon this analysis, we develop an empirically based framework of potentially important antecedents and effects of public sector innovation. We put forward three future research suggestions: (1) more variety in methods: moving from a qualitative dominance to using other methods, such as surveys, experiments and multi-method approaches; (2) emphasize theory development and testing as studies are often theory-poor; and (3) conduct more cross-national and cross-sectoral studies, linking for instance different governance and state traditions to the development and effects of public sector innovation.

/pdf/innovation-in-the-public-sector-a-systematic-review-and-16s7x3fd06.pdf

Innovation in the public sector: a systematic review and future research agenda

This article argues that current public management theory is not fit for purpose—if it ever has been. It argues that it contains two fatal flaws—it focuses on intraorganizational processes at a time when the reality of public services delivery is interorganizational, and it draws upon management theory derived from the experience of the manufacturing sector and which ignores the reality of public services as “services.” The article subsequently argues for a “public service dominant” approach. This not only more accurately reflects the reality of contemporary public management but also draws upon a body of substantive service-dominant theory that is more relevant to public management than the previous manufacturing focus. We argue that this approach makes an innovative contribution to public management theory in the era of the New Public Governance. The article concludes by exploring the implications of this approach in four domains of public management and by setting a research agenda for a public-service...

A New Theory for Public Service Management? Toward a (Public) Service-Dominant Approach:

Co-production is currently one of cornerstones of public policy reform across the globe. Inter alia, it is articulated as a valuable route to public service reform and to the planning and delivery of effective public services, a response to the democratic deficit and a route to active citizenship and active communities, and as a means by which to lever in additional resources to public service delivery. Despite these varied roles, co-production is actually poorly formulated and has become one of a series of ‘woolly-words’ in public policy. This paper presents a conceptualization of co-production that is theoretically rooted in both public management and service management theory. It argues that this is a robust starting point for the evolution of new research and knowledge about co-production and for the development of evidence-based public policymaking and implementation.

/pdf/co-production-and-the-co-creation-of-value-in-public-4u7rqr2wyd.pdf

Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment?

This paper explores the dialogue about innovation in public services currently found within public policy and creates an interaction between research and practice about its strengths and limitations. It argues that this dialogue is a flawed one, often both at odds with the existing evidence and lacking a holistic understanding of the nature of innovation and its distinctive policy and managerial challenges. It therefore synthesizes existing research to challenge current public policy thinking about the role and determinants of innovation in public services. It concludes by offering five lessons towards effective policy-making and implementation that would provide a more sophisticated and evidence-based approach to the encouragement and sustenance of public service innovation – and four key areas for further research.

Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the uk. the word that would be king?

This paper focuses upon two complex and related concepts, namely risk and innovation in public services. The last two decades have witnessed an increasing policy imperative around using innovation to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public services. Innovation is seen to be inextricably linked to positive risk-taking, and yet little attention has been paid to its governance in the public service innovation process. This paper argues that existing approaches to risk and innovation are not sufficiently developed and propose a framework of risk governance that aims to address these issues and suggests a research agenda for the future.

Risk and innovation: towards a framework for risk governance in public services

Although it is perceived wisdom that joint working must be beneficial, there is, even at this stage, little evidence to support that notion. The present study is an evaluation of two integrated co-located health and social care teams which were established in a rural county to meet the needs of older people and their carers. This study does identify that patients from the 'integrated teams' may self-refer more and are assessed more quickly. This might indicate that the 'one-stop shop' approach is having an impact on the process of service delivery. The findings also suggest that, in the integrated teams, the initial stages of the process of seeking help and being assessed for a service may have improved through better communication, understanding and exchange of information amongst different professional groups. However, the degree of 'integration' seen within these co-located health and social care teams does not appear to be sufficiently well developed to have had an impact upon the clinical outcomes for the patients/service users. It appears unlikely from the available evidence that measures such as co-location go far enough to produce changes in outcomes for older people. If the Department of Health wishes to see benefits in process progress to benefits to service users, then more major structural changes will be required. The process of changing organisational structures can be enhanced where there is evidence that such changes will produce better outcomes. At present, this evidence does not exist, although the present study does suggest that benefits might be forthcoming if greater integration can be achieved. Nevertheless, until the social services and National Health Service trusts develop more efficient and compatible information systems, it will be impossible to evaluate what impact any further steps towards integration might have on older people without significant external resources.

Evaluating the impact of integrated health and social care teams on older people living in the community.

Abstract This paper focuses upon two complex and related concepts, namely risk and innovation in public services. The last two decades have witnessed an increasing policy imperative around using innovation to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of public services. Innovation is seen to be inextricably linked to positive risk-taking, and yet little attention has been paid to its governance in the public service innovation process. This paper argues that existing approaches to risk and innovation are not sufficiently developed and propose a framework of risk governance that aims to address these issues and suggests a research agenda for the future.

Risk and innovation

Leading researchers from across the globe review the state of the art in research on innovation in public services, providing an overview of key issues from a multi-disciplinary perspective. Topics explored include: context for innovation in public services and public service reform; managerial change challenges; ICT and e-government; and collaboration and networks. The theory is underpinned by seven wide-ranging case studies of innovation in practice.

Louise Brown

Papers

Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the uk. the word that would be king?

Risk and innovation: towards a framework for risk governance in public services

Evaluating the impact of integrated health and social care teams on older people living in the community.

Risk and innovation

Handbook of Innovation in Public Services