Co‐Production of Public Services in Australia: The Roles of Government Organisations and Co‐Producers

Abstract

This article adds to the emerging empirical literature on citizen co-production. Based on a telephone survey of 1000 Australian adults, it replicates a five-country European study focusing on three policy domains: neighbourhood safety, environment, and health (Loeffler et al. 2008). It shows that individually performed and closely reciprocal activities with high levels of private value are performed the most often, whereas group activities producing mainly public value are the least performed. We found no evidence of a relationship between service satisfaction and co-production, or between information provision/inclusion/consultation and co-production, which challenges some of the previous literature on what might motivate citizens to co-produce. Citizen self-efficacy has a modest relationship with co-production levels in each of the three policy domains. These findings have implications for policymakers, and pave the way for future empirical research in this field.

ICTs and value creation in public sector: Manufacturing logic vs service logic

“…The e-government literature has discussed how ICTs enable different modes of public service production (Alford & Yates, 2016;Boulos et al, 2011;Cordella, 2007;Cordella & Willcocks, 2010;Gascó-Hernández et al, 2017;Margetts & Dunleavy, 2013;Mergel & Desouza, 2013;Pestoff et al, 2011) but has not critically compared these different modes of production in the light of the underpinning logic of value creation. This paper fills this gap in the literature and compares four different modes of production according to their operational capabilities and their related logics of value creation.…”

“…The e-government literature has widely discussed how the introduction of information and communication technologies (ICTs) has improved the efficiency and effectiveness of public service production (Alford & Yates, 2016;Boulos et al, 2011;Cordella, 2007;Cordella & Willcocks, 2010;Gascó-Hernández, Martin, Reggi, Pyo, & Luna-Reyes, 2017;Margetts & Dunleavy, 2013;Mergel & Desouza, 2013;Pestoff, Brandsen, & Verschuere, 2011). However, new ICTs such as Blockchain, Artificial Intelligence (AI), API platforms, Virtual Reality (VR), and Augmented Reality (AR), to mention a few, are changing how public services are produced and the process by which these services increase citizens' wellbeing and hence the value they delivered (Grönroos, 2008;Vargo & Lusch, 2004).…”

“…The e-government literature discusses with optimism the potential benefits of co-production enabled by different digital technologies (Alford & Yates, 2016;Boulos et al, 2011;Cordella, 2007;Cordella & Willcocks, 2010;Gascó-Hernández et al, 2017;Margetts & Dunleavy, 2013;Mergel & Desouza, 2013;Pestoff et al, 2011) but does not offer any comprehensive discussion and comparisons of the impacts of co-production and of the more traditional modes of public service production on the service production process and of the associated risks and benefits. In this paper, we fill this gap and we critically compare and contrast four different ICT mediated modes of production of public services on the basis of the openness of the production process and on the level of control that the different modes of production allow over the production of public services.…”

Implementation and trial evidence: a plea for fore-thought

“…Here, explicit attention is given to patients co-producing interventions with researchers and clinicians, particularly when the interventions are complex, for example, how services are designed. 33,34 This approach, along with greater patient and public involvement (PPI), potentially improves the transitional probabilities at each stage of Glasziou & Haynes model, by ensuring 'buy-in' of patients and clinicians alike. Examples of co-production in healthcare include: 1.…”

Reading Public Service Co-Production through the Lenses of Requisite Variety

“…The issues concerning the implementation of public service co-production have been investigated in different fields, including: health care (Palumbo, 2016), social care (Wherton, Procter, Hinder, & Greenhalgh, 2015), public safety (Alford & Yates, 2015), and infrastructure-based public services (Wiewiora, Keast, & Brown, 2016). Scholars have widely emphasised the value added of co-production, discussing its positive effects in terms of: service quality improvement (Radnor Osborne, Kinder, & Mutton, 2014), increased responsiveness (Marschall, 2004), and service innovation (Alves, 2013).…”