Abstract
User and community co-production has always been important, but rarely noticed. However, there has recently been a movement towards seeing co-production as a key driver for improving publicly valued outcomes, e.g. through triggering behaviour change and preventing future problems. However, citizens are only willing to co-produce in a relatively narrow range of activities that are genuinely important to them and are keen that their co-production effort is not wasted by public agencies. Moreover, there are concerns that co-production may involve greater risks than professionalised service provision, although services may be quality assured more successfully through involving users and embedding them in the community. While offering potential significant improvements in outcomes, and cost savings, co-production is not resource-free. Co-production may be ‘value for money’, but it usually cannot produce value without money.
Résumé
Coproduction utilisateur et de la communauté a toujours été important mais rarement remarqué. Cependant, il a récemment été un mouvement en faveur de voir la coproduction comme un facteur clé pour améliorer les résultats évalués publiquement, par exemple par le biais de changement de comportement de déclenchement et de prévenir les problèmes futurs. Toutefois, les citoyens ne sont disposés à coproduire dans une plage relativement étroite des activités qui sont vraiment important pour eux—et qui sont désireux que leur effort de coproduction n’est pas gaspillé par des organismes publics. En outre, il y a des préoccupations que cette coproduction peut comporter des risques accrus que prestation de service professionnalisé—bien que les services peuvent être de qualité avec plus de succès grâce à des utilisateurs et leur intégration dans la communauté. Tout en offrant des améliorations significatives potentielles dans les résultats et les économies de coûts, coproduction n’est pas exempt de ressources. Coproduction peut être « valeur pour l’argent », mais il ne peut généralement produire de valeur sans argent.
Zusammenfassung
Benutzer- und gemeinschaftliche Koproduktion war schon immer wichtig, aber nur selten bemerkt. Jedoch gibt es seit kurzem eine Bewegung, Koproduktion als wichtiger Motor für Verbesserung der öffentlich Leistungen, z. B. durch Verhaltensänderung auslösen und zukünftige Probleme zu verhindern. Bürger sind jedoch nur bereit, in einem relativ engen Bereich von Aktivitäten zu produzieren, die wirklich wichtig für sie—und sind daran interessiert, dass ihre Bemühungen Koproduktion von öffentlichen Einrichtungen nicht verschwendet wird. Darüber hinaus gibt es um die Koproduktion größere Risiken als unprofessionell Dienstleistung—beinhalten kann, obwohl Service Qualität mehr erfolgreich durch Benutzer und Einbetten in der Gemeinschaft gewährleistet sein können. Koproduktion bietet erhebliche Verbesserungspotenziale in Ergebnisse und Kosteneinsparungen, allerdings bedarf Koproduktion der Investition von Ressourcen. Koproduktion ist möglicherweise “Value for Money”, aber es kann nicht in der Regel Wert ohne Geld produzieren.
Resumen
Coproducción de usuario y de la comunidad siempre ha sido importante pero raramente notado. Sin embargo, recientemente ha habido un movimiento hacia viendo coproducción como un impulsor clave para mejorar los resultados valorados públicamente, por ejemplo, a través de desencadenar cambios en el comportamiento y la prevención de futuros problemas. Sin embargo, los ciudadanos sólo están dispuestos a coproducir en un rango relativamente estrecho de actividades que son realmente importantes para ellos—y están deseando que su esfuerzo de coproducción no se desperdicia por los organismos públicos. Además, hay preocupaciones que coproducción puede implicar mayores riesgos que la prestación de los servicios profesionalizados—aunque los servicios pueden ser de calidad garantizada con más éxito a través de involucrar a los usuarios y para la incrustación en la comunidad. Ofreciendo posibles mejoras significativas en los resultados y ahorros de costos, coproducción no es libre de recursos. Coproducción puede ser ‘value for money’, pero normalmente no pueda producir valor sin dinero.
摘要
用户和社区联产一直是重要,但很少注意。不过,最近一直朝着联产看作一个关键驱动因素提高公开价值的成果,例如通过触发行为的改变和防止未来的问题。不过,公民都只愿意高质素的范围相对较窄的活动,是真正重要的 — — 并热衷于他们联产的努力不会浪费的公共机构。此外,有担忧,联产可能涉及更大的风险,比提供专业化的服务 — — 虽然服务可能是质量保证更成功地通过涉及用户和在社区中嵌入它们。同时提供了结局和节省成本的潜在重大改进,资源免费联产不是是的。联产可能是 ‘物有所值,但它通常不能生产的价值没有钱。
ملخص
الإنتاج المشترك المستخدم والمجتمع كانت دائماً مهمة ولكن نادراً ما لاحظت. ومع ذلك، كان هناك مؤخرا حركة في اتجاه رؤية الإنتاج المشترك كقوة محركة رئيسية لتحسين نتائج ذات قيمة علنا، مثلاً من خلال أحداث تغيير في السلوك ومنع المشاكل المستقبلية. ومع ذلك، فقط المواطنين مستعدون برودوس في نطاق ضيق نسبيا من الأنشطة التي هي مهمة حقاً لهم – وحريصون أن لا يضيع جهدهم الإنتاج المشترك الوكالات العامة. وعلاوة على ذلك، هناك مخاوف أن الإنتاج المشترك قد تنطوي على مخاطر أكبر من توفير الخدمات بروفيشناليسيد--على الرغم من أن الخدمات قد تكون نوعية أكد أكثر بنجاح من خلال إشراك المستخدمين ودمجهم في المجتمع. حين تقدم تحسينات كبيرة محتملة في النتائج، وفورات في التكاليف، الإنتاج المشترك ليست خالية من الموارد. قد يكون الإنتاج المشترك ‘القيمة مقابل المال’ ولكن فإنه عادة لا يمكن أن تنتج القيمة دون المال.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Arnstein, S. (1971). The ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the Royal Town Planning Institute, 57, 176–182.
Barzelay, M. (2001). The new public management: Improving research and policy dialogue. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Bovaird, T. (2006). Developing new relationships with the ‘market’ in the procurement of public services. Public Administration, 84, 81–102.
Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond engagement and participation—user and community co-production of public services. Public Administration Review, 67, 846–860.
Bovaird, T. (2009). Strategic management in public sector organisations. In T. Bovaird & E. Loeffler (Eds.), Public management and governance (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
Bovaird, T. (2010). Model of public outcomes and cost implications: Thinkpiece for Birmingham total place initiative. Birmingham: INLOGOV.
Bovaird, T., Dickinson, H., & Allen, K. (2012). Commissioning across government. Birmingham: Third Sector Research Centre.
Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2006). Co-production, the third sector and the delivery of public services: An introduction. Public Management Review, 8, 493–501.
Brudney, J., & England, R. (1983). Towards a definition of the co-production concept. Public Administration Review, 43, 59–65.
Department of Health. (2009). CSED case study keyring: Living support networks. London: Department of Health.
Etzioni, A. (1995). The spirit of community. London: Fontana Press.
Governance International. (2011). http://www.govint.org/english/main-menu/our-services/engagement/co-production-tree.html (accessed on 28 September 2011).
Gunn, L. (1988). Public management: A third approach? Public Money and Management, 8(1–2), 5–23.
Hood, C. (1991). A public management for all seasons? Public Administration, 69, 3–19.
Horne, M., & Shirley, T. (2009). Coproduction in public services: A new partnership with citizens. London: Cabinet Office.
Kelly, G., Mulgan, G., & Muers, S. (2002). Creating public value. London: Cabinet Office.
Kretzmann, J., & McKnight, J. (1993). Building communities from the inside-out: A path toward finding and mobilizing a community’s assets. Evanston, IL: ACTA Publications.
Loeffler, E. (2010). A future research agenda for co-production: Overview paper. London: Local Authorities Research Council Initiative (LARCI).
Loeffler, E., Parrado, S., Bovaird, T., & van Ryzin, G. (2008). “If you want to go fast, walk alone. If you want to go far, walk together”: Citizens and the co-production of public services. Report to the EU Presidency. Ministry of Finance, Budget and Public Services, Paris.
Lovelock, C., & Young, R. F. (1979). Look to customers to increase productivity. Harvard Business Review, 57(May–June), 168–178.
Lyons, M. (2006). National prosperity, local choice and civic engagement: A new partnership between central and local government for the 21st century. London: HMSO.
Moore, M. (1995). Creating public value. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moran, D. (2002). The real contract. Paper presented to conference on Public Private Partnerships, Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, Belfast.
NESTA. (2011). Co-production Phase 2: Taking co-production to scale in services for patients with long term health conditions. Strategic partners—call for proposals. London: NESTA.
Normann, R. (1984). Service management. Chichester: Wiley.
Parks, R. B., et al. (1981). Consumers as coproducers of public services: Some economic and institutional considerations. Policy Studies Journal, 9, 1001–1011.
Percy, S. (1984). Citizen participation in the co-production of urban services. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 19, 431–446.
Pollitt, C. (1990). Managerialism and the public services. Oxford: Blackwell.
Porter, M. (1985). Competitive advantage: Creating and sustaining superior performance. New York: Free Press.
Porter, M., & Kramer, M. (2011). Creating shared value: How to reinvent capitalism and unleash a wave of innovation and growth. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 2–17.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Ramirez, R. (1999). Value co-production: Intellectual origins and implications for practice and research. Strategic Management Journal, 20, 49–65.
Regulation and Inspection. (2007). Open and accessible?. Glasgow: Communities Scotland.
Shakespeare, T. (2000). The social relations of care. In G. Lewis, S. Gewirtz, & J. Clarke (Eds.), Rethinking social policy. London: Open University and Sage.
Sharp, E. (1980). Towards a new understanding of urban services and citizen participation: The co-production concept. Midwest Review of Public Administration, 14, 105–118.
Verschuere, B., Brandsen, T., & Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production as a maturing concept. Voluntas. doi:10.1007/s11266-012-9307-8.
Warren, R., Harlow, K. S., & Rosentraub, M. S. (1982). Citizen participation in services: Methodological and policy issues in co-producton research. Southwestern Review of Management and Economics, 2, 41–55.
Whitaker, G. (1980). Co-production: Citizen participation in service delivery. Public Administration Review, 40, 240–246.
Wickström, S. (1996). The customer as co-producer. European Journal of Marketing, 30, 6–19.
Zeleny, M. (1978). Towards self-service society. New York: Columbia University Press.
Acknowledgments
This article is based on the revision of a text previously published in Pestoff, V., Brandsen, T., Verschuere, B. (2012). New Public Governance, the Third Sector and Co-Production, Routledge, London/New York. The authors would like to acknowledge the support of Birmingham City Council and of the Local Authorities Research Council Initiative (LARCI) for some of the research on which this article is based.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Bovaird, T., Loeffler, E. From Engagement to Co-production: The Contribution of Users and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value. Voluntas 23, 1119–1138 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6