Search results

Coproduction is both a recurrent way of organizing public services and a maturing academic field. The academic debate has analyzed several facets, but one deserves further analysis: its impact on the cost efficiency of public services. The purpose of this paper is to aim at systematizing the findings on the relationship between coproduction and cost efficiency and at developing insights for future research.

This paper is based on a structured literature review (SLR), following the approach proposed by Massaro, Dumay and Guthrie. The SLR approach differs from traditional narrative reviews since, like other meta-analysis methods, it adopts a replicable and transparent process. At the same time, when compared to most common meta-analysis or systematic review logics, it is better suited to incorporate evidence from case studies and etnographies. This makes the method especially suited to public administration and management studies.

Results shed light on the nature of the academic literature relating coproduction to cost efficiency, on what type of costs are affected and how and on the meaningfulness of productivity measures when public services are co-produced.

In times of fiscal distress for many governments, the paper contributes to research and practice in systematically re-assessing the effects of coproduction on public budgets.

The purpose of this paper is to offer some personal reflections and experience of using coproduction in the NHS. The purpose is to demystify coproduction and it is hoped that sharing personal experience will encourage others who may be contemplating using this approach in their quality improvement work.

Informed by underpinning literature, the approach is a combination of sharing case studies that span several decades at both the macro and micro level. Whilst several of the examples used are not mental health specific, they are equally applicable in this setting.

Coproduction principles can be used at all levels of the health and care system and are generally empowering for those involved. By soliciting insights from those who would not normally have a voice, it can help to overcome blind spots and produce better products and services. There is a correlation between staff engagement and patient outcomes which provides compelling evidence for coproduction approaches to be incorporated into organisational practice. Furthermore, patients and service users should no longer be considered as passive recipients of care but as an integral component of quality improvement processes.

The case studies offer examples of using coproduction at a national, organisational and individual level. In particular, the lessons learned from design science such as “thinking like an anthropologist” are shared. The distinction is made between patient satisfaction and patient experience and the impact that coproduction can have on organisational culture is discussed. By mobilising resources, knowledge and expertise across communities, coproduction capitalises on the “wisdom of the crowds” philosophy.

Coproduction fundamentally changes the roles of citizens and governments. The purpose of this paper is to enhance the theoretical understanding of the transformative changes in the structural order of the public domain that result from the coproduction of public services.

This paper builds upon both the literature on coproduction of public services, new public governance and on social contracts between citizens and the state to identify the nature, drivers and implications of the transformation. The argument is illustrated with examples from crime control and healthcare.

The analysis identified an institutional misfit and highlights four key issues that are key to the understanding of the structural transformation of public services: compensation for time and knowledge resources, responses to new forms of (in)equality, risk of conflicts between citizens and re-organizing accountability.

The analysis highlights the need for further research into the implications of coproduction for government legitimacy, transfer of power, financial implications, representativeness and consequences for non-coproducing citizens.

This paper links instrumental debates about the coproduction of public services to fundamental debates about the relations between government and citizens and identifies substantial issues that are raised by this structural transformation in the public domain and that require new responses.

This paper aims to explore the challenges of coproduction at individual, team, service, organisational and system level and critically describes the work of one organization to describe ways in which coproduction can be facilitated.

This is a case study of the approaches developed (coproduced) within an independent not-for-profit mental health consultancy organization to facilitate coproduction at every level.

Although much is published about coproduction in research, there is relatively little guidance relating to coproduction in practice. This paper describes the meaning, purpose and impact of coproduction at different levels and gives examples of how it can be achieved. The learning from his work is drawn together to present a series of findings with recommendations including: inclusion, managing power difference, accommodating difference, generating new ways forward rather than debating and selecting existing options.

The literature on coproduction in practice is replete with guidance rather than examples of good practice. It is also apparent that the ambition for coproduction has progressed rapidly from coproduction between service providers and people using services to coproduction with all relevant stakeholders. This paper provides contemporary examples of coproduction in different forms and at different levels with attention to ways of overcoming challenges.

To analyze and discuss the research on the public healthcare services (PHCS) through the lenses of coproduction/creation by systematizing the antecedents, the process enablers and the outcomes of coproduction/creation in terms of organizational and individual/patients factors.

A systematic review was performed based on 46 papers found in ISI Web of Science and Scopus databases following the Prisma Protocol for the search.

The results show that antecedents of coproduction/creation are connected to organizational/institutional capabilities (e.g. codesign of services or trust development) or patient/individual factors (e.g. physical and mental capabilities). The process of coproduction/creation relates with enablers, such as interactive and dynamic relationships between public care service providers and users. Finally, outcomes have diverse nature, namely quality of life, compliance, behavioral intentions, among others.

This study addresses the overlooked topic of coproduction/creation of value within PHCS. It contributes to public healthcare services literature wherein concepts of coproduction and cocreation of value are still on debate. It contributes to the transformative service research (TSR) by underlining that healthcare factors, processes and approaches may have a positive or negative (value codestructing) influence on the well-being. It yields crucial implications for PHCS.

It is the first attempt to systematize scientific knowledge on this topic, therefore conferring some novelty potential.

The purpose of this study is to investigate coproduction behavior in networking alumni communities via the progress from platform belongingness, knowledge sharing and citizenship behavior. Alumni networking communities have emerged as valuable assets for conserving institutional resources, supporting members and contributing new resources for alumni-institutional professional development. However, the previous literature has not yet captured the explicit processes by which these contributions are made.

Data from 711 respondents selected from an alumni collaboration network were subjected to structural equation modeling analysis.

The study explored resource conservation (belongingness) as the primary relational mechanism for alumni to share their instrumental resources (knowledge sharing), supporting resources (citizenship behavior) and competent resources (coproduction behavior). Knowledge sharing and citizenship behavior act as intermediate agents to trigger coproduction behavior. The authors show how subjective norm, group norm and trust is regarded as a tool to reduce bonding intrusiveness (i.e. the intrusive side-effects of a bond) and moderate the indirect effect of belongingness on coproduction and the direct effect of citizenship on coproduction.

By applying attachment theory, conservation of resources theory and digital platform networking perspectives, this study describes major implications for designing inspiring and compatible community platforms.

Guidance is provided for improving sustainable alumni communities through citizenship-sharing and coproduction behavior.

Online alumni communities are regarded as resource conservators, which can result in valuable coproduction, via the sharing of knowledge, expertise and skillsets to create profit for a range of institutions and industries.

Alumni networking platforms encourage alumni cohesiveness, stimulate knowledge exchange and improve professionalism.

Coproduction, as one component of cocreation of value, offers many benefits to customers and management, but also requires customers to invest a considerable amount of effort and time. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the coproduction paradox of benefits and costs.

One experimental study and two cross-sectional field studies across three service industries test the nonlinear relationship between level of coproduction and customer loyalty.

Results show not only the optimum level but also the negative effects of increasing levels of coproduction on customer loyalty and, in turn, monetary expenditures. The negative effect can be partially offset by perceived process enjoyment (PE), such that consumers who enjoy the process exhibit increased loyalty after the optimum coproduction point. Customer self-efficacy (SE), however, further strengthens the inverted u-shaped relationship.

Further research should try to replicate the findings in more complex and less hedonic service settings (e.g. financial investments) because both PE and SE might be even more powerful here.

Service managers need to determine the optimal degree to which customers want to engage in the creation of services and avoid overburdening them. Management should further explore opportunities to elicit feelings of fun and enjoyment through coproduction.

Research usually highlights the potential benefits of coproduction for customers and companies and suggests a positive linear relationship between coproduction and success outcomes. This article instead shows that after an optimum level, the marginal benefits of coproduction for customer loyalty turn negative.

Follower's individual differences have been receiving increased attention in studying destructive leadership because followers may enable or disable it. One of these yet under-researched features is the role of followers' leadership coproduction beliefs (a role construal) in explaining their resistance to destructive leaders. Departing from the proactive motivation theory, this paper explores the robustness of coproduction beliefs by testing its ability to predict followers' resistance to destructive leaders across four situations – abusive supervision, exploitative leadership, organization directed behaviors and laissez-faire.

With a sample of 359 participants that answered a scenario-based survey, the present study tests the relationship between coproduction beliefs and resistance behaviors in the four mentioned groups, while controlling for alternative explanations. A multigroup analysis was conducted with PLS-SEM.

Constructive resistance is always favored by coproduction beliefs independently of the leader's type of destructive behavior. Dysfunctional resistance, however, is sensitive to the leader's type of destructive behavior.

This paper extends knowledge on the role of coproduction beliefs as an individual-based resource against destructive leaders.

The purpose of this paper is to describe a recent experiment in research coproduction in an evaluation of service planning at a London Mental Health NHS Trust. The paper aims to consider whether members of the research team who have themselves been users of mental health services are able to contribute to the research process as “experts by experience”, or if their experiential knowledge is “colonized” within the academic research team.

A qualitative, comparative case study approach was adopted, using structured observations and semi‐structured interviews. Researchers' reflective accounts and a reflective focus group were employed to explore the process of coproduction.

The paper concludes that, far from “colonising” expertise by experience, the experiment builds local capacity in research coproduction and usefully informs a service planning process that reflects the priorities and concerns of a range of stakeholders.

The paper describes a small, local experiment in research coproduction and so findings are limited in their scope. However, the study demonstrates an effective methodological approach to evaluating, empirically, the impact of coproduction on the health services research (HSR) process.

The paper demonstrates the potential for repeated exercises in coproduction to build capacity in collaborative approaches to both HSR and service planning.

The involvement of experts by experience is increasingly a policy requirement in the domains of both health service planning and HSR in the UK. There are very few empirical studies that evaluate the impact of that coproduction.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the quantitative measurement tools used in fields of study related to coproduction, as an approach to mobilizing knowledge, in order to inform the measurement of impact.

An overview methodology was used to synthesize the findings from prior instrument reviews, focusing on the contexts in which measurement tools have been used, the main constructs and content themes of the tools, and the extent to which the tools display promising psychometric and pragmatic qualities.

Eight identified reviews described 441 instruments and measures designed to capture various aspects of knowledge being mobilized among diverse research stakeholders, with 291 (66%) exhibiting relevance for impact measurement.

Future studies that measure aspects of coproduction need to engage more openly and critically with psychometric and pragmatic considerations when designing, implementing and reporting on measurement tools.

Twenty-seven tools with strong measurement properties for evidencing impact in coproduction were identified, offering a starting point for scholars and practitioners engaging in partnered approaches to research, such as in professional learning networks.

Current quantitative approaches to measuring the impacts of coproduction are failing to do so in ways that are meaningful, consistent, rigorous, reproducible and equitable. This paper provides a first step to addressing this issue by exploring promising measurement tools from fields of study with theoretical similarities to coproduction.