Co-Production and Co-Creation 2018
DOI: 10.4324/9781315204956-10
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Roles of the Professional in Co-Production and Co-Creation Processes

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
40
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
5
5

Relationship

4
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 50 publications
(45 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
40
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…On a micro level, Pestoff (2014) argued that the heterogeneity of a group and face-to-face communication are important variables. Van Eijk, Steen, and Verschuere (2017) stressed that citizen and regular producer skills and capacity to co-produce are important; Fledderus (2015), Aagaard and Davy (2017) and Steen and Tuurnas (2018) emphasised relational capacity and trust as imperative for successful coproduction. On a meso level, the nature of the service and organisation of service delivery/creation (Pestoff 2014) are important, while organisational culture, decision-making processes, and local resources (Everingham et al 2012) also affect the process.…”
Section: Defining Contextual Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On a micro level, Pestoff (2014) argued that the heterogeneity of a group and face-to-face communication are important variables. Van Eijk, Steen, and Verschuere (2017) stressed that citizen and regular producer skills and capacity to co-produce are important; Fledderus (2015), Aagaard and Davy (2017) and Steen and Tuurnas (2018) emphasised relational capacity and trust as imperative for successful coproduction. On a meso level, the nature of the service and organisation of service delivery/creation (Pestoff 2014) are important, while organisational culture, decision-making processes, and local resources (Everingham et al 2012) also affect the process.…”
Section: Defining Contextual Variablesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…But around the early 2000s, the idea of coproduction experienced a resurgence among policymakers and scholars in Australia and Europe, in part because it provided an appealing alternative to the limits of new public management (Brandsen et al 2018). Since that time, the literature on coproduction has mushroomed to examine a range of questions, including: (a) citizens’ motivations and capacities for coproduction (Alford, 2009; van Eijk & Gascó, 2018); (b) whether coproduction results in better outcomes (e.g., empowerment, trust, and enhanced service quality) or has unintended costs (e.g., exacerbating inequality and greater staff burden) (Jo & Nabatchi, 2018; Loeffler & Bovaird, 2018; Verschuere et al, 2018); as well as (c) the conditions that make coproduction effective, including different staff and leadership skills (Steen & Tuurnas, 2018), accessibility of services (Pestoff, 2012), and the advent of new technologies (Lember, 2018). Importantly, public management scholars have also started to apply these ideas to NPOs, a point I return to in the final discussion (see Pestoff & Brandsen, 2008; Pestoff et al, 2013).…”
Section: Beneficiaries As Organizational Actorsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In co-production, service users become actively involved in the delivery of the services. Public servants, in turn, step beyond their traditional role as service providers by taking the responsibility for shaping an institutional context for co-production, and motivating and enabling citizen co-producers (Steen and Tuurnas 2018;Van Eijk 2017).Coproduction provides the opportunity for increasing efficiency and quality of service delivery through better use of time, efforts, and resources (knowledge, expertise) of both public servants and users. This may contribute to greater user satisfaction and better targeting of services (Pestoff 2006).…”
Section: Co-production As a Means For Realizing Public Valuesmentioning
confidence: 99%