What makes urban governance co-productive? Contradictions in the current debate on co-production

Following a number of prominent concepts in urban planning, like participatory planning or self-help housing, co-production has started to gain momentum in the global South context. While it is has been long discussed as a means of service provision, the term is more and more often used in the broader sense of urban governance and policy planning. This understanding goes beyond the aspect of scaling-up successful co-productive infrastructure focused projects; rather, it indicates a different format of engagement for prompting urban stakeholders into planning citywide urban solutions. This article discusses the distinction between the different levels of co-production and their inter-linkages, and it investigates the relevance of positioning co-production as a factor framing urban governance. This includes a discussion on three main contradictions that can be identified within the current discussion on co-production. Finally, it identifies a set of arguments for elaborating the role of co-production in a policy and urban governance setting

A model for analysing the challenges and opportunities in co-production

This interactive workshop will analyse the challenges and opportunities of working collaboratively with ‘students as co-producers’. The presenters’ draw on their experience of extensive collaboration with students on different projects in the School of Health and Social Care, to introduce a theoretical model that explores co-production. In particular, the model seeks to facilitate reflection, discussion and understanding about who ‘drives’, or controls, the co-production of knowledge in such partnerships, given the apparent differences in power and status between students and academics. Inherent within this analysis is an examination of the nature of key relationships within co-production including reference to ‘apprenticeship’ and ‘partnership’ models of knowledge production. A fifteen minute presentation will introduce key concepts relating to co-production and will present a theoretical model for analysis. Participants will be given approximately thirty minutes to discuss and test the model and to relate it their own experiences and plans for working with students as producers. It is envisaged that this collaborative, interactive approach will produce further knowledge and insights leading to refinement of the model. A fifteen minute plenary and conclusion will assist participants to reflect further on the challenges and opportunities of co-production. From this workshop participants will gain an enhanced understanding of working with students’ as co-producers of knowledge and will analyse some of the core issues that impact on co-production. Additionally, they will be introduced to an evolving theoretical model which explores some of the contradictions inherent within co-production and invited to contribute to the debate

Leadership and structure in the co-production of public services

This paper aims to initiate a debate about the utility of the concept of co-production in developing a better understanding of contemporary challenges to leadership and management in the provision of public services. The central argument made here is twofold: First, leadership must be shared to some extent for co-production to take effect, which supports current conceptual developments but also points to the need to focus future research more on relational dynamics and on institutional structures. Second, to develop models of leadership which reflect the nature of the co-production process, institutional concepts based on hybridity and blurred boundaries are likely to provide a useful starting point.Final Published versio

Co-production for innovation: the urban living lab experience

Urban Living Labs (ULLs) are public spaces where local authorities engage citizens to develop innovative urban services. Their strength and popularity stem from a methodology based on open innovation, experimentation, and citizen engagement. Although the ULL methodology is supposed to largely adopt a co-production approach, connections between the two have not yet been thoroughly investigated. The paper seeks to fill this gap by examining through a qualitative analysis three experiences of ULLs made in Amsterdam, Boston and Turin. Specifically, the paper aims to assess whether ULLs can be really conceptualised as a form of co-production and, if so, which elements characterised them as innovative in comparison to \u2018mainstreaming\u2019 co-production; Then it analyses benefits and drawbacks related to their implementation

Is Co-Production Possible? Tensions and Opportunities in the Relationship Between Public Sector Practitioners and Academic Providers

The paper explores some of the tensions and dilemmas in the relationship between public sector organisations and academic providers of training and consultancy. Developing the analysis offered by the authors at IRSPM XV, Dublin (Fenwick and McMillan, 2011) the paper considers critical factors in the relationship between client (public organisation) and contractor (higher education provider). This includes specific instances of collaboration, obtained from interviews with HE providers. These illuminate the crucial area of ‘co-production’ of knowledge and learning. It is our proposition that the rhetoric of co-production may bolster the aims of those in the organisation who seek to implement their own agendas for change, or the organisational need of academic providers to achieve their own internal goals, such as financial targets. The instrumental objectives of each party may be addressed through a language of co-production. We do not suggest that the public organisation-HEI relationship thus conceived necessarily generates negative outcomes. On the contrary, there is no doubt that tangible benefits (for both parties) may be produced by such collaborative programmes. But this is not our focus. Our aim is to illuminate the processes that are going on within this, that is, to deconstruct the meaning and practice of co-production and to identify its constituent elements and consequences at a time of unprecedented uncertainty for the public sector

Service Co-Production, Customer Efficiency and Market Competition

Customers’ participation in service co-production processes has been increasing with the rapid development of self-service technologies and business models that rely on self-service as the main service delivery channel. However, little is known about how the level of participation of customers in service delivery processes influences the competition among service providers. In this paper, a game-theoretic model is developed to study the competition among service providers when selfservice is an option. The analysis of the equilibria from this model shows that, given a certain level of customer efficiency, the proportion of the service task outsourced to the customer is a decisive factor in the resulting competitive equilibria. In the long run, two extreme formats of service delivery are expected to prevail rather than any mixture of both: either complete employee service or complete self-service. In the two-firm queuing game, we find that both firms are better off when they both deliver their service through self-service. It is also shown that full-service providers dominate the market if firms providing service products featuring self-service fail to have enough market demand at a profitable price. Meanwhile, the limited ranges of customer efficiency and the price for the self-service-only product are shown to be essential conditions for the coexistence of the different types of service providers.

Servitisation and value co-production in the UK music industry

Since the rise of music on the internet, record companies have reported falling sales of physical products. This has occurred at a time when technology has radically increased choice, availability and the opportunity for the consumer to purchase music. As the music industry has moved from a product to a service business model, has the loss of sales meant they have not taken their customers with them? This paper provides a description of different music consumers based upon quantitative analysis of consumer characteristics. The paper then undertakes an exploration of the relationship between the consumer groups and their purchasing preference in relation to intangible ‘service’ purchase such as downloaded music and the purchase of a tangible physical product such as CDs or vinyl. In addition, we analyse the relationship between consumer types and their propensity to actively engage with music communities, such as through engagement with social media, and thus their willingness to coproduce greater value. Finally we explore the moderating effects of age and time devoted to listening to music on purchasing preferences and music discovery

An empirical look at citizen co-production in Australia

Co-production – the contribution of time and effort to the delivery of public services by service-users and  citizens, prompted by or in concert with public sector organisations – is attracting increasing attention from governments and communities. The literature identifies numerous initiatives in the United States, Britain, Germany, Indonesia, Sweden and Latin America, with co-production reported in disaster management, social protection, economic affairs and education – among others.  Yet despite this interest in more than a few services, its ‘big society’ appeal, and the substantial scholarly endeavours devoted to it, there is still much to uncover about co-production. Large groups of co-producing clients have not yet been asked about what they actually do. This paper is a contribution to developing some answers. Drawing from a large-sample (1,000) survey of co-production in Australia, it looks at what co-producers do (in what kinds of services, and how often) and what motivates them to co-produce. It is part of a co-published Occasional Paper series from ANZSOG and the Victorian Public Sector Commission. &nbsp