The sustainability of outcomes in temporary co-production

Abstract

Purpose The temporary use of vacant spaces as a format to co-produce public services is becoming popular. Research addressing the question of whether the public outcomes created in temporary co-production lead to sustainable results is lacking. The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential sustainability of public outcomes created through temporary co-production. Design/methodology/approach The paper builds on the literature on creating sustainable outcomes in policy making and on co-production to design a theoretical framework that captures the sustainable co-production of public outcomes. Attention is directed to problem solving and capacity building, and to addressing the needs of society today and being responsive to the needs of tomorrow. A study of 8 temporary initiatives set in a large city in Flanders and 35 in-depth interviews with public servants, project coordinators and citizen co-producers provide empirical data for this exploratory study of the creation of sustainable outcomes in temporary co-production. Findings The data indicate that lasting collaborations, institutionalized (flexible) processes and empowered citizens support the creation of sustainable results from temporary co-production. Originality/value The paper bridges the literature on policy capacity, the co-production of public services and value creation. By doing so, the paper sheds light on the temporary use of vacant spaces as a way to effectively create outcomes. In addition, the paper addresses the paradox of temporary co-production and the creation of lasting outcomes. Finally, the framework presented offers a tool for analysts and practitioners to take into account various conditions for co-production to create lasting effects.

Assessing Consumers’ Co‐production and Future Participation On Value Co‐creation and Business Benefit: an F-P-C-B Model Perspective

“…Different studies have highlighted that the concept of coproduction comprises of (indirect or direct) "co-working with customers" (France et al 2018;Jaspers and Steen 2019) or active involvement of the customers in the service or product design process (Schallehn et al 2019). Co-production may be conceptualised through the interactions of the customers by the acts of mental and physical activities and mutual exchange Busser and Shulga 2019;Grover et al 2020).…”

“…Co-creation helps the customers to co-construct the service or product experience to meet up their expectations (Prahalad and Ramaswamy 2004a). This idea is also related to co-working of customers with the company (Jaspers and Steen 2019), which is also termed as 'coproduction' (Dargahi et al 2020).…”

Coproduction during and after the COVID‐19 Pandemic: Will It Last?

“…Closely related to this, Ostrom (1996) finds that mutual commitment is needed as well, so that coproducers can trust that if they continue or even increase their input, the other party will likewise do so. Jaspers and Steen (2020) point at the need to sustain the ability, motivation, and opportunity of coproducers, arguing that these conditions are crucial not only for making coproduction occur but also for sustaining it. Likewise, citizens are more likely to engage when they can see the advantage of doing so and it is therefore essential to consider the motivations and capabilities to coproduce (Brandsen, Steen, and Verschuere 2018b; Vanleene, Voets, and Verschuere 2018).…”

“…Jaspers and Steen (2020) address the question whether temporary coproduction initiatives can lead to sustainable outcomes, even after the temporary activity itself has come to an end. This paradox of temporary initiatives that create lasting outcomes provides valuable insights for the questions of what sustainable coproduction means and how the coproduction that emerged from the COVID‐19 crisis can be sustained after the crisis—in other words, how not to lose this newfound capacity to address longer‐term health, social, economic, and other needs.…”

“…Jaspers and Steen (2020) argue that capacity building for sustained coproduction includes institutionalizing processes. According to their view, this extends beyond the provision of regulative frameworks supportive of coproduction and includes the structural allocation of required (staffing and financial) resources.…”