LIST OF DEFINITIONS
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW
2.2 Co-production
2.2.1 Definition of Co-production
Co-production has been defined widely in the literature. According to Bovaird (2007) co- production is “the provision of services through regular, long-term relationships between professionalized service providers (in any sector) and service users or other members of the community, where all parties make substantial resource contributions’’(p.847). Furthermore, Hunter and Ritchie (2007) defined co-production as an approach to partnership between users and providers of services.
Alford (2009) reiterates that co-production is a matter of viewing the consumers as active participants in the co-production relationship where in any attempt, clients or consumers have to act in certain ways during and after delivery for the service policy objectives are achieved.
He further noted that the desired outcome cannot be achieved unless with real participations with the citizens. Thus clients do play an active role in constituting the interaction and its effects.
So, co-production is a basket of information and knowledge from citizens' views to enhance
their quality of life, happiness, and well-being. Osborne et al. (2016) defined co-production as the “voluntary or involuntary involvement of public service users in any of the design, management, delivery and/or evaluation of public services” (p.641).
According to Parks (1978), co-production originated in the early 1970s and it refers to the significant role of citizens in shaping and influencing the form, delivery and value of public goods and services. At the time, citizens, or service users, were barely recognized for their contributions to the effectiveness of service delivery in different communities. Thus, academic studies were conducted, one of which led to the creation of time banks where citizens could trade hours of work for certain services. The outcome led to the importance of collaborative interventions among societal leaders and members (Alford & Freljer, 2018).
The language of co-production expanded within public administration, education, theory and practice (Brudney & England, 1983). For example, in 1982, one section on Public Administration Education within the Charter of the American Society of Public Administration '' expressed “To develop approaches to public service education based on the concept of the learner as a co-producer of knowledge” (Adams, 1982). This fortifies the foundational idea that citizens exist to collaborate with public institutions for public service provisions.
Academic interest in co-production has increased and decreased over time, but the concept is currently attracting more interest in public service administration and management. Vorberg, Bekkers, and Tummers (2015) encapsulated that such interest could be a reflection of the government’s desire to engage citizens in decision-making and an action to revitalize the spirit of volunteerism. It can also be perceived as a method to channel citizens’ efforts as resources in lieu of reduced public funding.
In the world of practice and within the academy, co-production and co-creation are key topics with global relevance. The need to determine the scope, dynamics and conceptual distinction between the two is crucial to investigate and analyze the changing nature of public administration, management, and governance, as well as the effects of these changes. on the happiness and well-being of citizens.
Co-production and co-creation are just two of the various terms that seem to indicate synonymous practices, such as community development, collaborative governance, participation and civic engagement (Vorberg, Bekkers, &Tummers, 2015). To investigate the commonalities and differences between co-production and co-creation, Brandsen and Honingh (2018) have outlined three methods of understanding the relationship between the two terms.
First, the two terms are approximately the same as both refer to any type of citizen input in public services. Second, co-production has a more specific meaning while co-creation encompasses all kinds of citizen inputs in services. Third, co-production and co-creation have distinct meanings, referring to different kinds of citizen input.
In the context of public services, co-creation is a newer and more slippery term, while co- production has a longer tradition (Brandsen & Honingh, 2018). Vorberg, Bekkers, and Tummers (2015) provided some clarity on the distinction between the two by reserving the term ‘co- creation’ for engagement of citizens in the co-design or co-initiator level while co-production is considered as the involvement of citizens in the application phase of public services.
Brandsen and Honingh (2018) indicated that co-production and co-creation share a few commonalities. For one, they account for a direct part of the production process. Also, they both
refer to collaboration between citizens and service providers in public agencies. Finally, both terms indicate citizens’ active input in shaping services.
Osborne and Strokosch (2013) have argued that, from a service-dominant approach, co- production of public services is inherent or inevitable and it is possible for citizens to design services with different levels or degrees of active input. To elaborate on this further, one example is the case of designing lessons in a high school class. A teacher can actively engage students in designing lessons, or it can just be a one-way learning street where pupils will just sit back and listen, or the teacher will prepare some questions and exercises to generate interaction. Another possibility in the situation is when the students participate in representative councils and discuss with staff and managers at the strategic level the general design of lessons.
With these instances, the distinction between co-production and co-creation can be drawn. Co- creation pertains to services or roles at a strategic level while co-production is generally associated with the services that citizens receive during the application stage of a production cycle and if they form the service during the advanced period. The variation in the extent to which a citizen provides input or engagement provides the basis for the distinction between co- production and co-creation.
Ranjan and Read (2014) adopted a conceptual framework that explains that co-production is a part of co-creation. As Figure (1) shows that they focus on two main ideas: co- production and value-in-use. Co-production shows how involved the actor is and has three parts:
interaction, equity and sharing knowledge. Value-in-use, on the other hand, refers to the types of experiences that are affected by cognitive, emotional, and behavioral characteristics. These experiences can be defined in three ways: experience, personalization, and relation.
FIGURE 1: CO-CREATION PRACTICES AND DIMENSIONS (RANJAN &READ,2014, P.23)
Utilizing clearer definitions of co-production and co-creation contributes to a better understanding of the outcomes and dynamics of co-production. Brandsen and Helderman (2012) also provided the following illustrations of housing cooperatives to differentiate the two terms:
Firstly, if the tenants collaborate actively in the design or maintenance of the house, then it is co-production. Secondly, if the tenants initiate or deliberate in a representative council to discuss issues on design or maintenance, it is co-creation.