Value Co-creation Platform as Part of an Integrative Group Model-Building Process in Policy Development in Indonesia

Putro, Utomo Sarjono

doi:10.1007/978-4-431-55273-4_2

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Despite this overlapping of definitions and the interchangeable use of these terms, there are some specific features indicating that these two concepts should not be treated as synonyms. Firstly, co-creation puts an emphasis on value creation as the main intention and result of collaboration (Gebauer et al 2014;Farr 2016;Putro 2016;Torvinen and Haukipuro 2018). Secondly, co-creation presumes a more active relationship among actors and constructive exchanges of different types of knowledge, skills, ideas, and resources, at a higher (e.g., meta, strategic, or policy) level of change, beyond the service level usually implied in the case of co-production (Sevin 2016;Edelenbos et al 2018;Torvinen and Haukipuro 2018;Touati and Maillet 2018).…”

Section: Definition(s) Conceptual Properties and Problems Of Co-promentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative Innovation in Public Administration: Theoretical Background and Research Trends of Co-Production and Co-Creation

Jukić

Pevcin

Benčina

et al. 2019

Administrative Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents the results of the content analysis of 139 Web of Science papers focused on collaborative innovation with external stakeholders of public administration, specifically on co-production and co-creation. The analysis included papers published between 2009 and 2018 and was based on a coding scheme consisting of 12 parameters grouped into four groups: paper descriptors, financial support of the research, methodological framework, and co-creation characteristics. The results reveal a considerable increase in researchers’ interest in co-production and co-creation in the context of public administration in the last few years. This is particularly the case in Northern and Western Europe, where Anglo-Saxon and Nordic administrative traditions dominate. Furthermore, the results show that co-creation is most often placed in the contexts of social policy and welfare, as well as health care. Over the selected period, research seldom addressed companies as a target group in the co-creation of public services—in comparison to citizens and internal users. More than three quarters of the papers observed were empirical and less than 20% were quantitative. In general, a lack of conceptual clarity was often identified through the interchangeable usage of the terms co-creation and co-creation and the low level of international comparison—the majority of the papers focused on case descriptions at a national level, even though collaborative innovation is strongly related to administrative traditions dominating in specific regions.

show abstract

Section: Definition(s) Conceptual Properties and Problems Of Co-promentioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative Innovation in Public Administration: Theoretical Background and Research Trends of Co-Production and Co-Creation

Jukić

Pevcin

Benčina

et al. 2019

Administrative Sciences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Namely, in contrast to co-production as a process focused on the improvement of specifi c services (Kershaw et al 2017), the goal of co-creation is more ambitious, leading to public value creation (Gebauer et al 2014;Farr 2016;Putro 2016;Torvinen and Haukipuro 2018). Hence, diff erently from co-production, which takes place at the service level -usually at the delivery phase of the service production cycle (Ryan 2012;Pestoff 2014;Alford 2014;Th ijssen and Van Dooren 2016;Oldfi eld 2017;Vennik et al 2016;Nesti 2018) -, co-creation implies the inclusion of diff erent stakeholders and the exchange of their resources at the higher, i.e.…”

Section: Co-creationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Collaboration can be successful if a continuous twoway channel of communication exists, as it provides regular and direct interaction with external stakeholders (Barbera et al 2016;Tu 2016). Th e relationship between the public organization and citizens should be built on trust and equality (Saha 2012;Burall and Hughes 2016;Cho et al 2016;Sicilia et al 2016;Tu 2016;Andersen et al 2017;Kane and Boulle 2018;Lindsay et al 2018aLindsay et al , 2018cWiid and Mora-Avila 2018), and rely on mutual understanding and constructive interaction (Surva et al 2016;Edelenbos et al 2018;Kane and Boulle 2018), where all parties involved clearly identify the expected outcomes and each other's goals and eff ectively understand and value each other's wants (Fledderus et al 2014;Isett and Miranda 2015;Putro 2016;Tu 2016;Tuurnas 2016). According to several authors (e.g.…”

Section: Co-creation Drivers and Barriers From Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Organizational Readiness for Co-Creation of Public Services in the Central and Eastern European Administrative Tradition: Development of the Conceptual Multi-Attribute Decision Support Model

Hržica

Pluchinotta

Kovač

et al. 2021

NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Co-creation of public services and policies is considered a promising practice of re-shaping the traditional relationship between the state and its citizens, businesses and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Nevertheless, there are also warnings that the implementation of the process of co-creation could fail. A possible reason is that the organization is not ready or sufficiently mature to implement the process of co-creation. This paper addresses co-creation drivers and barriers identified through systematic literature review and analysis of case studies from two Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries. The aim of this paper is to provide practitioners from CEE countries with a conceptual multi-attribute decision support model for evaluating the organizational readiness for co-creation. The methodological framework consists of three steps. The first two steps, content analysis (i.e. literature review) and case-study analysis, were used to identify and analyze drivers and barriers, which are then used in the last step to develop the conceptual multi-attribute decision support model. The developed model consists of 26 attributes grouped into three categories: capacity of the organization, drivers and barriers related to internal (public organization) co-creators, and context related drivers and barriers. The key points for practitioners are: • Co-creation drivers and barriers affect organizations at the beginning of their co-creation journey (i.e. in identifying the key co-creation success factor at the organizational level); • Co-creation drivers and barriers serve as guidance to organizations that were unsuccessful in co-creation; • The conceptual model supporting the evaluation of co-creation readiness serves as a tool to those that consider implementing co-creation; • The model offers an insight into a possible methodology for evaluation of readiness in different areas; • For practitioners from the CEE region, co-creation drivers and barriers, together with the conceptual multi-attribute decision support model supporting the evaluation of co-creation readiness, offer a roadmap to successful co-creation.

show abstract

“…Various authors (De Koning, Crul & Wever, 2016;Putro, 2016;Novani et al, 2015;Kijima, Rintamki & Mitronen, 2012) indicate that a co-creation process should include specific steps like identify, analyse, define, design, realize and evaluate or listen, identify, ideate, collaborate, evaluate and experiment. However, according to Kijima et al (2012) and supported by Suryana, Mayangsari and Novani (2017), for co-creation to have real value your co-creation process steps should rather be: co-experience, co-definition, co-elevation, and co-development.…”

Section: Models Of Co-creation To Considermentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, according to Kijima et al (2012) and supported by Suryana, Mayangsari and Novani (2017), for co-creation to have real value your co-creation process steps should rather be: co-experience, co-definition, co-elevation, and co-development. When applying co-experience, the client and supplier should share their understanding of the nature of the problem, process and to comprehend each other's preferences, capabilities, and expectations so that they may co-define and share a common internal model (Putro, 2016). Co-elevation has to do with the process of understanding the expectations of customers and abilities of the providers.…”

Section: Models Of Co-creation To Considermentioning

confidence: 99%

Co-Creating an Ict Artefact With Women in South Africa

Smith

Turpin

Herselman

2019

12th IADIS International Conference Information Systems 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The active involvement of rural women in ICT4D initiatives is essential to ensure that they benefit from the initiative in general, and the technology artefact in particular. Usually ICT4D projects are male centered and the relevance of ICTs to the women within their contextual realities are not always considered. The purpose of this paper is indicate how an ICT artefact was co-created with rural women in South Africa in a resource constrained context. Participatory approaches like co-creation are important when implementing ICT4D initiatives aimed at rural women. Through the application of Design Science Research as the methodology an ICT artefact was co-created in a specific context in South Africa with rural women only. It is a longitudinal study that is still evolving. The lessons learnt and process that was followed will be shared. The main finding was that the active participation and feedback of the users of a system are essential when aiming to address their immediate and long term needs. If this is not the case the ICT artefact will not be used and it will yet again become part of the statistics of why Information Communication Technology for Development (ICT4D) projects fail.

show abstract

Value Co-creation Platform as Part of an Integrative Group Model-Building Process in Policy Development in Indonesia

Cited by 4 publications

References 3 publications

Collaborative Innovation in Public Administration: Theoretical Background and Research Trends of Co-Production and Co-Creation

Collaborative Innovation in Public Administration: Theoretical Background and Research Trends of Co-Production and Co-Creation

Organizational Readiness for Co-Creation of Public Services in the Central and Eastern European Administrative Tradition: Development of the Conceptual Multi-Attribute Decision Support Model

Co-Creating an Ict Artefact With Women in South Africa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About