Fostering organizational change through co-production. Insights from an Italian experience

Palumbo, Rocco; Vezzosi, Stefania; Picciolli, Paola; Landini, Alessandro; Annarumma, Carmela; Manna, Rosalba

doi:10.1007/s12208-018-0205-7

Cited by 24 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 61 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Collaboration represented by the prefix "co" implying partnership and equality Union/collaboration of stakeholders (researchers and non-researchers) [83,84];"mutual knowledge exchange" [44]; "common understanding" [66]; shared vision and decision-making; meaningful engagement with participants [47,62]; equal voice and a collective vision [54,60] Activity Ideation "generate" [18,83], "explore" [85]; "brainstorm ideas" [49], "provoke discussion" [44,78]; reflect on how to meet community needs, solve problems and improve service delivery [58,61,62,86,87] Activity Designing taking of ideas (generated in the co-ideation phase); planning of the production of concrete outcomes (products, services or programs) [41,66] Activity Implementing participation of stakeholders in the delivery of services and programs [42] Activity Evaluating usability testing of prototypes and products [47] and state actors and the public to assess the quality of public services [70,86]; provide constructive feedback on services, interventions or products to researchers [56]; feedback may be collected through the administration of pre-and post-initiative questionnaires or engagement in focus groups [53,59]; feedback is collected and used to improve services [56]…”

Section: Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the Co-Creation of New Knowledge? A Content Analysis and Proposed Definition for Health Interventions

Pearce

Maple

Shakeshaft

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Co-creation of new knowledge has the potential to speed up the discovery and application of new knowledge into practice. However, the progress of co-creation is hindered by a lack of definitional clarity and inconsistent use of terminology. The aim of this paper is to propose a new standardised definition of co-creation of new knowledge for health interventions based on the existing co-creation literature. The authors completed a systematic search of electronic databases and Google Scholar using 10 of the most frequently used co-creation-related keywords to identify relevant studies. Qualitative content analysis was performed, and two reviewers independently tested the categorisation of papers. Of the 6571 papers retrieved, 42 papers met the inclusion criteria. Examination of the current literature on co-creation demonstrated how the variability of co-creation-related terms can be reduced to four collaborative processes: co-ideation, co-design, co-implementation and co-evaluation. Based on these four processes, a new definition of co-creation of new knowledge for health interventions is proposed. The analysis revealed the need to address the conceptual ambiguity of the definition of “co-creation of new knowledge”. The proposed new definition may help to resolve the current definitional issues relating to co-creation, allowing researchers and policymakers to progress the development of co-creation of new knowledge in research and practice.

show abstract

Section: Activitymentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the Co-Creation of New Knowledge? A Content Analysis and Proposed Definition for Health Interventions

Pearce

Maple

Shakeshaft

et al. 2020

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…2 However, the majority of the current literature agreed on broadening the definition of this group by including several actors, such as public authorities (e.g. municipalities), 35 managers and employees of public service organisations 36 or private firms, 37 experts 22 and non-government organisations (NGOs). 38…”

Section: Conceptual Backgroundmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitating co-production in public services: Empirical evidence from a co-design experience with family caregivers living in a remote and rural area

Gheduzzi

Morelli

Graffigna

et al. 2020

Health Serv Manage Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The involvement of vulnerable actors in co-production activities is a debated topic in the current public service literature. While vulnerable actors should have the same opportunities to be involved as other actors, they may not have the needed competences, skills and attitudes to contribute to this process. This paper is part of a broader project on family caregivers’ engagement in remote and rural areas. In particular, it investigates how to facilitate co-production by looking at four co-design workshops with family caregivers, representatives of a local home care agency and researchers. The transcripts of the workshops were coded using NVivo, and the data were analysed based on the existing theory about co-production. Two main findings were identified from the analysis. First, the adoption of co-production by vulnerable actors may occur in conjunction with other forms of engagement. Second, the interactions among facilitators and providers play a crucial role in encouraging the adoption of co-production. We identified at least two strategies that may help facilitators and providers achieve that goal. However, there is a need for an in-depth understanding of how facilitators and providers should interact to enhance implementation of co-production.

show abstract

“…Among the forms of public engagement, co-production has been identified as a possible solution for several managerial issues, especially in the health and social care sector [ 2 ]. Recent studies have suggested co-production as a means to increase citizens’ satisfaction and trust in service providers [ 3 ], enhance innovation [ 4 ], and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of products and services [ 5 – 7 ]. Its fame has increased to such an extent that the concept of co-production has ‘enchanted’ (sic) its audience; it seems to have become a magic solution (sic) for both public and private challenges [ 8 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to prevent and avoid barriers in co-production with family carers living in rural and remote area: an Italian case study

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Co-production has been widely recognised as a potential means to reduce the dissatisfaction of citizens, the inefficacy of service providers, and conflicts in relations between the former and the latter. However, the benefits of co-production has begun to be questioned: co-production has often been taken for granted, and its effects may not be effective. To understand and prevent unsuccessful citizen and provider collaboration, the recent literature has begun to focus on the causes of co-destruction. This paper investigates how the barriers that may arise during the co-production of a new social service with family carers can be identified and interpreted. Methods To investigate this topic, we undertook a single case study - a longitudinal project (Place4Carers (Graffigna et al., BMJ Open 10:e037570, 2020)) intended to co-produce a new social care service with and for the family carers of elderly patients living in rural and remote areas. We organised collaborative co-assessment workshops and semi-structured interviews to collect the views of family carers and service providers on the co-production process. A reflexive approach was used in the analysis for collecting the opinions of the research team that participated in the co-production process. Results The analysis revealed four main co-production barriers: lack of trust, lack of effectiveness of engagement, participants’ inability (or impossibility) to change and the lack of a cohesive partnership among partners. Despite these findings, the project increases carers’ satisfaction, competence and trust in service providers by demonstrating the positive effects of co-production. Conclusions Our article confirms that co-creation and co-destruction processes may coexist. The role of researchers and service providers is to prevent or remedy co-destruction effects. To this end, we suggest that in co-production projects, more time should be spent co-assessing the project before, during and after the co-production process. This approach would facilitate the adoption of adjustment actions such as creating mutual trust through conviviality among participants and fostering collaborative research between academia and organisations that are not used to working together.

show abstract

Fostering organizational change through co-production. Insights from an Italian experience

Cited by 24 publications

References 61 publications

What is the Co-Creation of New Knowledge? A Content Analysis and Proposed Definition for Health Interventions

What is the Co-Creation of New Knowledge? A Content Analysis and Proposed Definition for Health Interventions

Facilitating co-production in public services: Empirical evidence from a co-design experience with family caregivers living in a remote and rural area

How to prevent and avoid barriers in co-production with family carers living in rural and remote area: an Italian case study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About