New development: Expanding public service value to include dis/value

Abstract

This article introduces two new terms to the public value lexicon: 'public service ethos' and 'dis/value'. Both terms serve to progress the conceptualization of public value. 'Public service ethos' is used to refer to the prevailing assumption that the inclusion of service user voices in the delivery and improvement of public services creates individual and societal benefits (public value). 'Dis/value' refers to the public value relationships that fall outside of the public service ethos. Three service assemblages are used to exemplify this. These examples show that a theorypractice disjuncture is present, whereby the 'public service ethos' is not practicable based on its anthropomorphic focus and the consequent failure to recognize complexity. To overcome this, the authors draw on new materialist theory to reposition public value as a relational assemblage that can accommodate value in all combinations. IMPACTFor public service managers and policy makers, value is now a common buzzword and its creation or production processes represent common approaches to service delivery. Increasing numbers of academic studies argue that public value is overly optimistic and premised on overly positive ideals of universal benefit. Two new terms are proposed in this article that both critique current approaches to public value and also expand the concept to reflect the complex reality of public service practice: dis/value and public service ethos. Public service ethos represents the idealism associated with the public value and dis/value accounts for public value relationships and experiences that fall outside of this. These terms are intended to further the conceptualization of value and also translate theoretical development into a language that both reflects and can be used in public service practice.

New development: COVID-19 as an accelerator of digital transformation in public service delivery

“…User reaction and interaction follows as a consequence of a museum's 'push' action. Museums were not analysing what users say or prefer in a bottom-up logic that is closer to the process of co-creating value (Cluley et al, 2020). All these museums can access a social media monitoring platform, with previous reports suggesting which strategies are more likely to engage users, such as linking posts to specific events and occasions (St Valentine's Day) or TV stars.…”

Applying Elinor Ostrom’s Design Principles to Guide Co-Design in Health(care) Improvement: A Case Study with Citizens Returning to the Community from Jail in Los Angeles County

“…Extending the polycentric systems and CPR theorisation yet further, we proffer that improving co-design initiatives would therefore help to avoid what we – after Hardin’s original ‘tragedies of the commons’ concept [ 25 ] – term ‘tragedies of co-design’; these not only describe the traditional ‘tragedies’ of overuse, e.g., inequitable contributions between collaborators leading to burnout and less effective collaboration, but unlike Hardin’s definition also describes underuse as the ultimate tragedy, e.g., failure to co-create value and demonstrate improvement subsequently serving to justify more traditional (top-down) ways of working. This conceptualisation complements existing ‘dark side’ [ 15 ] and ‘dis/value’ [ 47 ] critiques. Theorising co-design in this way further emphasises the potential utility of Ostrom’s design principles to enhance co-design efforts beyond those that typically occur within healthcare improvement and foster more collaborative and inclusive approaches to service design and integration.…”

Co-Producing and Co-Designing

“…77,78 The potential for value 'codestruction' or the co-production of 'dis/value' has also been acknowledged. [83][84][85] These unwanted outcomes can emerge from policy-makers using the language of…”