In recent years, there has been a radical reinterpretation of the role of policy making and service delivery in the public domain. Policy making is no longer seen as a purely top-down process but rather as a negotiation among many interacting policy systems. Similarly, services are no longer simply delivered by professional and managerial staff in public agencies but are coproduced by users and their communities. Th is article presents a conceptual framework for understanding the emerging role of user and community coproduction and presents several case studies that illustrate how diff erent forms of coproduction have played out in practice. Traditional conceptions of service planning and management are now outdated and need to be revised to account for coproduction as an integrating mechanism and an incentive for resource mobilization — a potential that is still greatly underestimated. However, coproduction in the context of multipurpose, multistakeholder networks raises important public governance issues that have implications for public services reform.

/pdf/beyond-engagement-and-participation-user-and-community-4cgkuohupx.pdf

Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Coproduction of Public Services

Efforts to ensure effective participation of patients in healthcare are called by many names—patient centredness, patient engagement, patient experience. Improvement initiatives in this domain often resemble the efforts of manufacturers to engage consumers in designing and marketing products. Services, however, are fundamentally different than products; unlike goods, services are always ‘coproduced’. Failure to recognise this unique character of a service and its implications may limit our success in partnering with patients to improve health care. We trace a partial history of the coproduction concept, present a model of healthcare service coproduction and explore its application as a design principle in three healthcare service delivery innovations. We use the principle to examine the roles, relationships and aims of this interdependent work. We explore the principle's implications and challenges for health professional development, for service delivery system design and for understanding and measuring benefit in healthcare services.

https://qualitysafety.bmj.com/content/qhc/25/7/509.full.pdf

Coproduction of healthcare service

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?

In recent years, public management research has paid increasing attention to the third sector, especially to its role in the provision of public services. Evidence of this is the rising number of publications on the topic, as well as a growing number of sessions and papers on the topic in academic conferences of the EGPA and IRSPM. However, much of the discussion on its role is motivated at least as much by ideology as by fact. We still lack a comprehensive empirical understanding of what happens when the third sector is drawn into public service provision. In this collection on Co-Production: The Third Sector and the Delivery of Public Services, we will try to enhance this understanding by presenting several new studies on the subject. We also introduce the concepts of co-production, co-management and co-governance as a conceptual framework that enables us to better understand such developments.

Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services : an introduction

The concept of coproduction of public services has captured increased attention as a potential means of increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of local government. In this article we explore the concept of coproduction in an effort to sharpen the definition of that concept and add rigor to our understanding of the effects of coproduction in local service delivery and the processes by which coproductive activity occurs.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1981.tb01208.x

Martha B. Vandivort

Papers

Consumers as coproducers of public services: some economic and institutional considerations