beyond citizen engagement

7/28/2019 Beyond Citizen Engagement

1/33

P. K. Kannan

University of Maryland,College Park

Ai-Mei Chang

University of MarylandUniversity College

Beyond Citizen EngagementInvolving the Public in Co-Delivering Government Services

Collaborating Across

Boundaries Series


2/33

P. K. Kannan

Ralph J. Tyser Proessor o Marketing Science

Chair, Department o Marketing

The Robert H. Smith School o Business

University o Maryland, College Park

Ai-Mei Chang

Proessor o Systems Management

University o Maryland University College

Caba Acss Bas Ss 2013

Beyond Citizen Engagement:

Involving the Public in Co-Delivering

Government Services


3/33


4/33

3

Beyond Citizen engAgement: involving the PuBliC in Co-delivering government ServiCeS

www.businessofgovernment.org

Table of Contents

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Executive Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Technology Trends Create New Opportunities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .10

What Is Co-Delivery o Public Services? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11Understanding Key Design Elements o Co-Delivery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13

Understanding the Three Types o Co-Delivered Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

The Co-Design o Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

The Co-Production o Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

The Co-Delivery o Public Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

A Guide or Introducing and Implementing a Co-Delivery Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

When Is Co-Delivery an Appropriate Approach? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20

How Do You Manage Risk in a Co-Delivery Initiative? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21

What Are Some o the Key Design Questions That Need to be Addressed? . . . . . . . . . 22

What Are Some o the Key Implementation Steps? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .22

How Do You Know I Its Working? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Reerences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

About the Authors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Key Contact Inormation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30


5/33

4


IBM Center for The Business of Government

Maria-Paz Barrientos

Foreword

On behal o the IBM Center or The Business o Government,we are pleased to present this report, Beyond CitizenEngagement: Involving the Public in Co-Delivering Government

Services, by P.K. Kannan and Ai-Mei Chang.

The Obama administrations 2009 Open Government Initiativesparked innovative ways o engaging the public in government.

But engagement or engagements sake has not been an endgoal. Trends in both the public and private sector, in the U.S.

and around the world, have leveraged new technologies avail-able to create meaningul dialogue and relationships betweencitizens and their government.

As this report is being written, new agency initiatives in thisarena are suracing. For example, the National Archives andRecords Administration has created the new role o citizenarchivist, enlisting individuals to help transcribe Civil War let-ters so they can be read on the Web. In act, last year when theArchives released the paper-based 1940 Census records, over

150,000 volunteers joined together in electronically taggingmore than 130 million records so they could be searchable on

the Web. Similar eorts to engage citizens are underway inother agencies as well, as Kannan and Chang describe in thisreport.

The authors interests go beyond just documenting this newphenomenon. Kannan and Chang examine how these initiativeswere designed. They provide a guide to issues and practicesthat other public sector leaders can use to determine i programs,inormation, or services they provide could beneit rom the useo co-delivery principles.

Daniel J. Chenok


6/33

5



We hope this report will serve as a useul inspiration and guideto public managers at all levels o government in their eorts toimprove service delivery and engage citizens in their governmentin meaningul ways.

Maria-Paz BarrientosPartner, Social BusinessIBM Public Sectormaria.barrientos @ us.ibm.com

Daniel J. ChenokExecutive DirectorIBM Center or The Business o Governmentchenokd @ us.ibm.com


7/33

6



Citizen participation in government is at the very oundation o democracy in the UnitedStates. This premise has been reinvigorated in recent years by the Obama administrationsOpen Government Initiative that resulted in dozens o ederal agency initiatives to involvecitizens by proactively seeking their input into policy and other decisions.

However, today there is an opportunity to go beyond traditional orms o citizen participationsuch as voting and testiying at public hearings. The rise and increasing pervasiveness o digi-

tal social mediaFacebook, Twitterhave dissolved the many technical barriers to widespreadand sustained citizen involvement in actually co-producing and co-delivering public services.

Pioneering initiatives, in turn, are also thawing the cultural barriers among proessional publicadministrators to engaging and co-designing public services with non-expert citizens.

Beginning in the early 1980s, academics began to recognize that the aspiration or citizenparticipation in government should go beyond only contributing to the policy ormulation pro-cess. It was recognized that citizen participation could also extend to the delivery o publicprograms (Whitaker 1980). The recognition that the delivery o services could include citizenparticipation is relected in the long history o citizen involvement as jurors and volunteer ire-ighters, sel-management o community centers, and in neighborhood watch programs. Butthis newly recognized phenomenon o co-delivery was also increasingly being adopted in the

private sector in many ways, including the use o ATM machines and sel-service gas stations.

Beginning in the late 1990s and early 2000s, advances in technology allowed governmentsaround the world to pioneer new approaches to more actively engage citizens in the design,

production, and delivery o public services. An early trend was creating sel-service opportuni-ties so that citizens could ind inormation or complete a service transaction online on theirown. This included, or example, online availability o congressional bills or drivers licenserenewals.

Government-initiated citizen participation eorts have begun to evolve beyond listening andresponding to complaints to eorts at greater engagement, such as the use o e-petitions andcitizen reporting o street-level service problems. Some ederal agencies are pioneering new

initiatives as well, such as the citizen archivist role at the National Archives and RecordsAdministration, where citizens can help digitize the Archives paper records, identiy individu-als in old photographs, and transcribe handwritten Civil War diaries.

There have been a number o traditional barriers to expanding the use o co-deliveryapproaches, such as:

Government administrators distrust o non-proessional citizens

Government administrators ear o loss o control

Lack o seed unding (Bovaird and Loeer 2012)

Executive Summary


8/33

7



However, a clearer understanding o dierent engagement strategies and their value andpotential limitations can help lower some o these barriers, especially in cases where govern-ment leaders are willing to pilot the adoption o these new operating approaches.

This report highlights three dierent types o co-delivery initiatives that can increase citizenengagement, each oering dierent roles and opportunities or citizens to engage in public

services: co-design, co-production, and co-delivery o public services.

Co-design initiatives. A co-design initiative allows citizens to participate in the development oa new policy or service. These kinds o initiatives typically are time-bound and involve citizenseither individually or as a group. For example, the development o the Obama administrationsOpen Government policy in 2009 engaged citizens via an open electronic platorm where citi-zens could be actively involved in the drating o policy guidance.

Co-production initiatives. A co-production initiative involves citizensas individuals or ingroupsin creating a service to be used by others. These can involve either short-term or

long-term participation. For example, the Youth Court o Washington, D.C. engages irst-time,non-violent oenders to serve as a jury and try other oenders as a teaching tool to reduce

the chances o recidivism. Similarly, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Oice engages individualoutside experts in the patent application examination process to speed patent issuance. Incontrast, the Library o Congress engages large groups o citizens via crowdsourcing to classiyand categorize content and acilitate appropriate inormation retrieval or all users.

Co-delivery initiatives.The co-delivery approach involves citizensas individuals or ingroupsin delivering a service to others. It can be premised on either short-term, transaction-based or longer-term relationships. The United Kingdom has been a pioneer in co-delivery ohealth and mental health programs, including amily intervention programs and communitysupport programs.

This report provides examples o each o these three approaches to engaging citizens in the

public sector, and it explores their beneits and risks. It concludes with a guide or governmentexecutives, consisting o insights on introducing and implementing co-delivery initiatives. Wehope that this guide will be helpul to government executives who want to pilot one or moreo the approaches presented in this report.


9/33

8



Citizens across the globe are increasingly seeking to get involved in the delivery o servicestraditionally provided to them by governments. This increased participation is occurring at allpoints in the policy-to-implementation spectrum o government programs:

Setting program objectives

Defning outcomes

Shaping service delivery to meet citizens needs and wants

Citizens do not view such initiatives as one-time, eel-good events where they volunteer theirsupport. Rather, they want to become meaningully involved on an ongoing basis both in theco-delivery o government services and in the opportunity to shape these services and contrib-

ute to their related social value.

This desire or greater, more meaningul, sustained engagement on the part o citizens has

become stronger in recent years with the expansion o various Web 2.0 technologies. Theseinclude:

The creation o online social networks

Ubiquitous, on-demand access to communication channels to interact with the government

An overall increase in education levels and training opportunities or citizens

In addition, this trend is reinorced in the U.S. by demographic shits as the millennial genera-tion enters the adult population. Studies show that they are ar more community- and service-oriented than older age cohorts (Winograd and Hais 2008). The central question this reportexamines is:

How can governments meaningully leverage the contributions o individuals whodesire greater engagement in their community, on behal o their own well-being andthat o their ellow citizens, while also increasing the eiciency and eectiveness opublic services?

This is a particularly timely question to ask as citizens increasingly expect to be involved in

more meaningul ways in their government, while many governments at all levels are increas-ingly acing budget cuts and inancial crisis as the economy struggles to move past the linger-ing eects o the Great Recession.

There is increasing evidence and realization, based on private sector experience, that suchco-delivery initiatives can lead to improved outcomes. In the case o health services, crimeprevention, and social programs, it can be argued that the intended beneits o such initiativescan never be ully achieved without citizen involvement. The value citizens can bring to

Introduction


10/33

9



designing and implementing processes can be signiicant and is oten not measured or recog-nized by service providers. Additionally, the outcome is not just seen in economic terms butalso in social dimensions. Input o citizen resources through co-created processes can otenhave a leveraging impact on the resources that government agencies put in, leading toimproved social and economic value or money invested in such initiatives.

Over the past two decades, governments have been using technology to allow sel-service asan option. Government is now recognizing the potential value o increasing use o co-deliveryinitiatives such as:

Designing educational policies and schools or cities and regions, such as charter schools

Improving local neighborhoods through the use o online networks to create community

awareness or neighborhood watch programs

Some o these eorts have been pilots and experiments, but there are clear indications that

the increased use o co-delivery is taking root in both public and private sectors in the U.S.and around the world.

This report seeks to contribute to a more nuanced understanding o dierent dimensions orcitizen engagement in government servicesrom co-design to co-production to co-deliveryactivitiesand its suitability or various governmental activities. The report also describes howsuch initiatives can strengthen the bond between citizens and governments and how sucheorts can increase citizen trust in government. It is also important to understand the percep-tions that citizens have regarding their involvement in co-delivery initiatives, and how to takethese insights into account when designing joint initiatives. Such an understanding can helpleverage the emerging social trends among citizens to increase civic engagement and to make

government more relevant to addressing societal challenges.

Organizations in both private and public sectors ace challenges in how they can eectively

harness the potential o citizen/customer engagement in services in a constantly evolving envi-ronment. This evolution is not just limited to the technology dimension, where the changes arevery ast-paced indeed, but also takes place in the organizational and social dimensions.

There is a clear trend in both private irms and public institutions toward increased engage-ment o customers and citizens. This trend includes the use o intermediaries. The design oservices, the model or allocation o resources, and measurement and accountability modelshave to be transormed. Collectively, these represent a challenge or government agencies totake on.


11/33

10



The world is more interconnected than ever beore, with geographic and social boundariesrapidly disappearing. These changes have been ueled by rapid advancement in inormationand communication technology, opening up new possibilities and opportunities or active par-ticipation in web communities and social networks while increasing the awareness o issuesacing societies and providing a channel or action to change societies and political landscape.Citizens want greater transparency and involvement in governance and service provision bypublic agencies.

Technology Trends Create New Opportunities

The trend in the 1990s and early 2000s in both public and private sectors to provide sel-ser-vice options took advantage o advancements in technology. This trend helped uel the desire ocitizens (and customers, in the private sector) to be more involved in the design and delivery oservices. Private sector companies were oten pioneers in developing such initiatives, such as theLEGO Factorys innovative platorm. LEGO Factory is a place where children design new modelsusing a digital designer and compete against each other online. LEGO advances co-design in a

variety o ways. First, LEGO invites design experts to collaborate with the customers in thedesign process. This helps the experts get resh ideas rom customers, while maintaining thedesign principles. Second, LEGO has various blogs, such as Nxtbot and bNXT, on which userspost suggestions and advice, thus enabling each others design eorts. Lastly, LEGO allows cus-tomers to compete or the best design. This helps customers to design the inest products. Thus,LEGO and its customers work together to innovate and create the best customer-centric products.In parallel with the private sector, the public sector also began pioneering its use o co-delivery.Greater connectivity, greater awareness o economic disparity, and changing social demograph-ics led citizens to increase social capital in their communities. This was relected in theirincreased involvement in altruistic causes with a non-proit motive. Social value creation hasincreased in popularity across society and citizens have been exploring creative ways to contrib-

ute in both the public and private sectors. Another private-sector pioneer is Intuits TurboTax,which created an online orum where tax customers contribute eort or the common good anddirectly help other community members. The TurboTax live community is a customer-support

community or its inancial and tax return products. In this community, the more experiencedcustomers create value by giving advice and support to those who need help. Those memberswho have contributed signiicantly to the community get recognized by displaying the numbero questions they have answered and the number o thanks they have received rom othermembers. McKinsey Consulting estimates that when customer communities handle an issue,

the per-contact cost can be as low as 10 percent o the cost o resolving the issue throughtraditional call centers, a substantial saving or Intuit in the cost o serving customers.

Background


12/33


13/33

12



Self-Service Delivery Initiatives

Self-service initiatives are an early form of co-delivery of services. They evolved as an outgrowth of tech-

nology advances in the 1990s and early 2000s. They were a good first step in overcoming inherent

concerns that professional government managers had about greater citizen engagement. Most self-service

initiatives, such as self-service kiosks and web-based services, have become mainstream in government

settings, largely because of their success in the private sector; these include self-service gas and self-checkouts at grocery stores.

The self-service option becomes a separate channel through which citizens interact with government

agencies. The success of such initiatives depends on the level of citizen adoption of the channel, and an

understanding of the cost/benefits of maintaining this channel in addition to traditional channels.

Costs to CitizensTo determine whether or not citizens will adopt a self-service channel, it is important to understand the

costs citizens need to bear in interacting through the channel. These include:

Search costs: These are the time, eort, and convenience actors in interacting with an agencythrough a sel-service channel. To the extent that these costs are lower than the ones in traditionalchannels (ace-to-ace), there is a higher incentive or citizens to adopt this channel.

Risk costs: These costs include economic risk, quality, or perormance risk and privacy and personalrisk. I the quality o service through the sel-service channel is not up to par, or it costs more moneyor citizens to interact through this channel, or i there are signiicant privacy risks, then citizens areless likely to adopt the sel-service channel.

Channel access costs: Citizens need to have appropriate skill levels to interact through the sel-service channel. While many o the required skills depend on the design o the sel-service process,some citizen groups with lower education levels may not preer to use, or example, the web-channelas their costs o learning and accessing the channel may be high.

The above costs vary depending on the individual citizens involved. It is the net cost of search, risk, and

channel access that will determine whether a citizen will adopt a self-service or traditional channel. Citizens

compare the costs of obtaining their service through the traditional channel and self-service channel and

make their adoption decision. Understanding these costs helps a government agency to segment its citizen

base and determine the percentage of citizens that are more and less likely to adopt the channel.

Costs to GovernmentAn agency considering a self-service channel should take the following factors into account.

The costs o service provision through the sel-service channel: The general premise here is that theuse o technology in these channels reduces the costs o service provision, either by reducing the levelo sta needed to provide service in person, or by using citizen eort in getting much o the serviceprovision, or both. Sometimes these costs may actually be higher on a per-transaction basis, espe-cially i the number o citizens adopting the channel is low. I there is a signiicant beneit to citizenswith increased service satisaction, it might be well worth the investment.

Marketing the sel-service channel: It is important to market the channel to counteract possible citi-zen inertia in adopting the channel. I the beneits are made clear, then the percentage adopting the

channel can be increased. Agencies should also set targets to increase participation in the channeland provide education to citizens to encourage adoption o a sel-service channel.

Examples of the Self-Service Initiatives in Action United States Small Business Administration (SBA). The SBAs website, www.business.gov, eatures

online tools and resources to engage and acilitate conversation between the small business com-munity and all levels o government. According to the White House Open Government Initiative, Thesmall business community beneits rom expanded access to other small business owners and expertswho can help answer their questions. The community acilitates and expedites the exchange o inor-mation between a business owner and a wide range o resources including other small business own-ers, intermediaries representing small business, and ederal, state, and local government employees.
http://www.business.gov/http://www.business.gov/


14/33

13



Additionally, the government gains very valuable input rom the customers it serves so that resourcesand policy can best help the small business community thrive and grow ( http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/innovations/Business).

United States Postal Service kiosks and mailboxes. Kiosksin U.S. post oices enable citizens topurchase stamps and postage when the service capacity is limited in branches. Similarly, a neigh-borhood mailbox cluster, where mail is delivered centrally instead o to each home, is becoming

increasingly common in new housing developments. In this instance, mail recipients must helpdeliver their own mail.

Social in terms o citizen-to-citizen interactions

Initiated by the government rather than by the citizens (which dierentiates it rom purevolunteer work)

Understanding Key Design Elements of Co-DeliveryWithin any co-delivery initiative, there are a series o decision points concerning the designand characteristics o the initiative that designers should take into account or the initiative tobe successul. These include:

At what point does engagement occur? Citizens can become engaged at dierent points inthe policy cycle in any initiative. These points can include:

Program or policy design stage

Policy or service production stage

Final service or inormation delivery stage

Evaluation stage

What is the nature o the engagement? Two types o interactions can occur in a co-deliv-ery initiative. One type is transaction-based: a citizen will interact to complete a specifctask or contribute a specifc idea. These tend to be short-term in nature. For example,providing advice on the design o a new policy via an e-rulemaking website is a one-time

transaction.

Another type o interaction is relationship-based: where there is an ongoing interactionbetween individual citizens or groups o citizens and a government program. For example,participation in a chronic disease mitigation program or becoming a registered expert orpatent application reviews are types o co-delivery engagement.

How will participants interact with government? Another key design issue is whether theinitiative is intended to be an interaction between a government program and an individual,or an interaction between multiple individuals and the government program. As discussedin the ollowing section o this report, the United Kingdoms Keyring program helps com-munities o the mentally disabled maintain independence, and in the TimeBank system,residents at a housing project in Cardi can earn credits that can be converted to services

by participating in community projects.

Determining such design issues in advance will help rame the boundaries o the initiative andhopeully contribute to a better designed and more successul initiative.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/open/innovations/Businesshttp://www.whitehouse.gov/open/innovations/Businesshttp://www.whitehouse.gov/open/innovations/Businesshttp://www.whitehouse.gov/open/innovations/Business


15/33

14



Do Citizens Want to Be Engaged inCo-Delivery of Government Services?

Citizen willingness to actively engage in co-delivering government services is a key issue in the success

of such efforts, and is often raised by government leaders as a barrier to attempting co-delivery in the

first place. However, recent surveys and focus groups in Europe show growing citizen interest in greater

involvement in the development and delivery of selected government services.

Surveys conducted in European Union countries in the past four years focus on community involvement in

neighborhood, environment, and health care programs. Surveys include respondents from Denmark, the

United Kingdom, France, the Czech Republic, and Germany (Holmes 2011; Horne and Shirley 2009).

Some highlights:

When respondents are asked how much they believe that they could make a dierence in improvingsaety, the local environment, and health, the index o agreement (maximum 100) ranges rom 64to 79 percent across the countries surveyed. In the same survey, the number who oten get involvedin public service ranges rom 48 to 56 percent. Overall, while two-thirds to three-quarters o citizensbelieve that their contribution can make a dierence to public outcomes, the percentages that actu-ally get involved are somewhat lower.

When public services involve health, neighborhood, and environment, a large proportion o citizensare willing to spend their own time and eort. In sel-care medical and educational programs, amajority o patients and parents want to be treated as equal partners with proessionals and want todo more by themselves.

In general, citizens want to be empowered in the co-production/co-delivery initiatives. They tend tovalue choice, control, and involvement in the processes. But citizens are also very discriminatingabout their service engagement experiences. They want public services to be dierent rom normalretail/supermarket experiences.

In the context o policies adopted by governmental agencies, citizens involved in co-creating (design-ing) the policies show a high level o support or the policies, even i they do not personally agreewith some elements o the policy. They also indicate high levels o satisaction with the co-deliveryprocess and their levels o involvement.

In addition, focus groups with American citizens from different age categories were conducted by the

authors (Kannan and Chang) over a three-year period focusing on all aspects of citizen perceptions of andinvolvement in government services, their use of Web 2.0+ and social media tools, and their understand-

ing of co-production and co-delivery processes and technologies. In the context of citizen engagement,

focus group participants were provided concrete examples of self-service, co-production, and co-delivery

initiatives covering both transaction-based service processes and relationship-based processes. The focus

groups reinforced the findings of the surveys, described above. Highlights include:

Attitudes towards citizen engagement initiatives are very positive: Overall, citizen groups are verypositive in their attitudes toward engagement initiatives. Co-production and co-delivery initiativesare seen as a logical outgrowth o technology developments and sel-service initiatives in the area otransaction-based government services.

Citizens willingness to contribute resources to government service processes is generally high: Citizens willingness to contribute varies with the application areas. In general, citizens willingness tocontribute is high in areas involving local government and their immediate environmentneighbor-

hood, environment, recycling, cleanup o public spaces, saety in neighborhoods, etc. The design strategy o an initiative is key to adoption: Participants stress that the design o the ini-

tiative is key to its ultimate success. Does it make me want to participate and contribute? Is therea eel-good actor? Am I making a dierencehow do I know that? It has to be more than a cost-cutting exercise. There is general agreement that citizens need to see that their involvement is mak-ing a dierence.

Need or training: Many respondents question the implicit assumption that all citizens have thenecessary expertise to contribute eectively in government service processes. This is especially truein the case o transaction services. In such cases, the need or training citizen in the process o co-creating is highlighted. (Our school has very useul guidelines or parent volunteers; I would expectsomething like that i I were to co-create some service.)


16/33

15



Governments are rethinking the traditional provider-centric operating model to incorporatemore citizen involvement. Under this new approach governments role becomes more that oan enabler or platorm or citizen action instead o the sole provider o services.

The Co-Design of Public Services

Co-design initiatives provide opportunities or citizens to participate in the development o anew policy or service. These kinds o initiatives typically are time-bounded and involve indi-

vidual citizens or groups. For example, the development o the Obama administrations OpenGovernment policy in 2009 engaged citizens via an open electronic platorm where citizenscould suggest policy options and other citizens could join in or revise them online.

Examples o co-design initiatives. Following are two examples o government-sponsored co-design initiatives in other countries:

Consulting Canadians.The Canadian government provides a single-point access online orits citizens to provide their input on any matter o government policy or actions contem-plated by any government agency or department. These consultations, as they are called,are listed by each agency or department at the www.consultingcanadians.gc.cawebsite

indicating the dates o consultationwhen citizens can provide their inputand theprogress on each consultation. The consultations are updated on a regular basis by eachagency and department and provide easy access to citizens to provide their design input onany action listed at the website.

New South Wales Education Department.Australia undertook a strategic planningexercise in 2007 or the design o its education services or the Tamworth region. Thisexemplifes a co-delivery exercise with signifcant input rom the stakeholders, such asteachers, students and parents, and local government planners (Holmes, 2011). Theinteraction among stakeholders was acilitated by a third-party independent agent, who

ensured the inclusiveness and deliberation o all stakeholders in the process. The processitsel involved multiple sessions with students, parents and teachers; workshops; delibera-tion orums with citizens acting as jury; briefngs with interest groups and the education

department. The output o the engagement was communicated through local media o alltypes. The process resulted in 58 recommendations being made to the education depart-ment, with consensus on a signifcant number o them, and the process ensured that thelocal community had an active and signifcant input in the design o the education initiativeintended to have an impact or years to come.

The Co-Production of Public Services

A co-production initiative involves citizensas individuals or in groupsin creating a serviceto be used by others. For example, the Youth Court o Washington D.C. engages irst-time,

Understanding the Three Types ofCo-Delivered Public Services
http://www.consultingcanadians.gc.ca/http://www.consultingcanadians.gc.ca/


17/33

16



non-violent oenders to serve as a jury and try other oenders as a teaching tool to reducethe chances o recidivism. Similarly, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Oice engages individualoutside experts in the patent application examination process in order to speed patent issu-ance. In contrast, the Library o Congress engages large groups o citizens via crowdsourcingto classiy and categorize content to acilitate appropriate retrieval o inormation or all users.

A co-production initiative is oten seen in a social, educational, or health care services contextthat involves a longer-term interaction o an agency with an individual (also called a relation-ship-based service), where the production o a service requires the active input o eort andresources rom both a government agency and individual citizens to enhance eiciency andchances o a positive service outcome.

Examples include rehabilitating youth oenders, managing the quality o lie o mentalpatients, or using educational services where learning occurs through active eorts by individ-

ual users. Co-production initiatives may also involve participation o third-party service provid-ers and volunteers. Such initiatives depend on the eort or active participation by the aectedindividuals i a positive service outcome is to occur.

The successul outcome in such programs oten ocuses on the integration o dierent proes-sional disciplines, such as social services, crime prevention, medicine, addiction treatment,and education. It also depends on the extent to which citizens contribute their resources andeorts to solve the problems. These resources are not just time, skill, knowledge, or eort onthe part o the citizens; more important are their motivations, social relationships with theiramily, and the amilys willingness to voluntarily play a critical role in achieving the outcome.These resources cannot be substituted by other resources and cannot be made up by more

money and time by the government agencies. Government can bring in resources such asmoney, expertise, case workers and proessional service providers, plans, and expectations,but unless citizens contribute signiicantly, successul outcomes cannot occur. This means therisks o service outcome should be shared between government agencies and the participantsin the program (Horne and Shirley 2009).

A successul outcome in such situations hinges not only on the contribution o resources romboth partiesgovernment agencies and participantsand sharing o risks, but also sharingo control over how the resources are used. Government needs to cede some control o itsemployees and participants so that customization in service provision is achieved. The rela-tionship-based aspects o service provision become signiicant because the participants need

to trust the government agencies and proessional workers ocusing on better outcomes tothese problems. A paradigm shit in service provisionbased on mutual trust and participantshaving more control and using their own non-substitutable resourcesis necessary or suc-cessul outcomes.

Co-production in the context o social programs reduces the demand or curative services andinstead puts the ocus on preventive services. It leads to better long-term outcomes tochronic, contested, and complex issues by growing social networks to support resilience(Horne and Shirley 2009). In certain situations, such as social service and health programs,co-production can lead to increased quality o lie by encouraging sel-help, sel-control, andbehavior change. Extant studies have shown that when participants have more control, itleads to better outcomes in the context o social programs. Co-production is also seen as

essential to building sustainable public services and necessary to guarantee the long-termviability o essential public services especially given the scarce resource situation acing allgovernmental agencies (Horne and Shirley 2009). It leads to sustainable services andincreased return on government investment.


18/33

17



Examples o co-production initiatives. Followingare several examples o co-production initia-

tives. Some are short-term and transaction-based in their design, while others are longer-termand relationship-based in their design:

The British Columbia Ministry o Transportation. In Canada, this program combinesMapQuest data with real-time trafc data to create a mash-up o current driving conditionsand advice to drivers and commuters. Such inormation allows citizens to avoid congested

routes while regulating the trafc load on main arteries. Drivers can call in or enter inor-mation they come across as they drive, which gets updated in the map. This is an example

o drivers helping each other through network technology with the technology componentmanaged by an intermediary (Deloitte 2008).

SeeClickFix. This interactive website allows citizens to report non-emergency issues thatthey come across in their communitiespotholes, grafti, broken street lights, etc. (Barkat,Jaeggli and Dorsaz 2011). Users can track local government responses to their reports.This service is ree or citizens to use, and 50 U.S. cities are using back-end tools andapps to enable fxing the reported issues. (www.seeclickfx.com).

The Library o Congress. The Library is using co-delivery to classiy and categorize con-tent, aiding appropriate retrieval o inormation or all users. The Library is now implement-

ing several pilot projects that allow users o its inormation to tag the content and providemetadata inormation using social bookmarking. The pilots have three specifc goals:

Provide the Librarys public domain content in user community environments

Encourage users to co-produce by generating tags or the content they read, which

helps other users as well as the Library

Create olksonomy to supplement expert-generated taxonomy

The agency plans to place citizen-generated content on its website or other users to takeadvantage o ater veriication procedures to ensure the integrity o the content (Novakand Springer, 2007).

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Ofce (USPTO). USPTO has embarked on a co-produc-tion initiative by enlisting outside experts in reviewing patent applications and allowing thepublic to examine the patent applications and provide input o prior examples. ThisinitiativePeer-to-Patent: Community Patent Review Pilotlaunched in 2007 allows theUSPTO to reduce its backlog o reviews through community involvement in the patentexamination process, and is an excellent example o how co-production through commu-

nity networks can help government agencies be more efcient and eective (Deloitte2008).

The Youth Court o Washington. In the District o Columbia, the Youth Court has putco-production into action by designating frst-time, non-violent oenders between the ageso 12 and 17 to serve as juries in the Youth Court; they then try other, subsequent oend-ers (Rosenberg 2011).

The program keeps the irst-time oenders out o the ormal juvenile justice system andputs them to work, making the co-delivery (o justice) experience into something positiveand helping them to get back on the right track. The co-production experience lowers theprobability o recidivism, helps the oenders to negotiate and communicate better, and

makes them more responsible or their actions. The Youth Court system has been airlysuccessul. A recent survey showed that 77 percent o the youth graduated rom highschool and 43 percent o those went on to study in colleges, and the recidivism o 11percent is much lower than the rate in the ormal juvenile system (Rosenberg 2011).
http://www.seeclickfix.com/http://www.seeclickfix.com/


19/33

18



The Co-Delivery of Public Services

A co-delivery service setting can be either transaction-based or relationship-based, where citi-zens individually or jointly engage in delivering innovative services or themselves as well asother citizens. The ocus o co-delivery initiatives is on active, joint citizen involvement in thedelivery o services (or outcomes) or both sel and others.

Co-delivery initiatives are the ultimate maniestation o citizen engagement in government ser-vices. These initiatives span a broad spectrum ranging rom transaction-based service pro-cesses to relationship-based processes and rom shorter-term to longer-term. Citizens providedesign ideas and work to ulill service delivery that not only beneits themselves but alsoother citizens. Technological innovations and the role o third-party intermediaries have both

been important catalysts or co-delivery initiatives.

Examples o co-delivery initiatives. Following are examples o both transaction-based and

relationship-based services in several governments around the world:

TimeBank System (United Kingdom). In Cardi, UK, Ta Housing is one o the disadvan-taged housing estates where tenants earn time credits by volunteering time to helpdeliver services o the housing association (Boyle and Harris 2009). These time creditscan be used as cash to purchase leisure services and arts admission in nearby organiza-tions. The TimeBank system is a powerul method to create networks o volunteers to helpcommunities in need and has been practiced extensively in the UK to deliver volunteer

services (see www.timebanks.org).

Family Intervention Projects (United Kingdom). Family intervention projects (FIPs) areintensive, whole-amily approaches to reducing antisocial behavior. They provide anoutreach service, accommodation in the community, and 24-hour monitored residentialaccommodation or chaotic amilies. At the heart o the project is a relationship betweenthe whole amily and a key workerbacked up by a contract with sanctions. There arecurrently 53 FIPs in the UK that have helped around 500 amilies. Evidence indicates that85% o existing participants had reduced or ceased their antisocial behavior; the risk o

homelessness and amily breakdown has also been reduced.

Expert Patient Program (United Kingdom).This co-production initiative provides peersupport that enables patients to contribute their expertise to one another. The aim o the

program is to help patients with chronic or long-term health conditions to build theirsel-confdence through a series o six-week courses. The topics range rom healthy eatingto dealing with pain and eelings o depression to sel-help techniques. The courses aredelivered by trained tutors who have the same conditions as the patients. The aim o theprogram is to help patients take more responsibility or managing their health and cooper-ate with healthcare proessionals, leading to positive, manageable outcomes; the programcovers about 17.5 million patients with long-term health conditions including arthritis,asthma, diabetes, and multiple sclerosis (Horne and Shirley 2009).

Keyring (United Kingdom). Keyring helps citizens with mental and physical disabilities toshare their skills and talents or the beneft o everyone in the community. The ocus is onensuring that the community members have the right to live independently and enablingthem to make choices about how and where they live their lives. The community membersare organized into networks with each network consisting o a volunteer who lives in thecommunity, knows the members, sees them regularly and in case o emergencies, andhelps them to make useul links with other members in the community. The members workon varied projects that range rom helping people in emergency situations and saving livesto running campaigns or streetlights and neighborhood improvements. The membernetworks also eature community support workers and supported living managers, unded

by Keyring.
http://www.timebanks.org/http://www.timebanks.org/


20/33

19



The Harlem Childrens Zone (United States). This program in New York City is an excel-

lent example o a sustained co-delivery eort in a social application arena ocusing onwell-being and development o children. The two guiding principles o the program are:

To help children in a sustained way, starting as early in their lives as possible,

To create a critical mass o adults around them who understand what it takes to help

children succeed (http://www.hcz.org/about-us/the-hcz-project).

The co-delivery eort involves proessionals, volunteers, and public servants working topositively impact the health and educational outcomes in Harlem. Harlem ChildrensZone Project is a unique, holistic approach to rebuilding a community so that its childrencan stay on track through college and go on to the job market.

The goal o the program is to create a tipping point in the neighborhood so that childrenare surrounded by an enriching environment o college-oriented peers and supportiveadults, a counterweight to the street and a toxic popular culture that gloriies misogyny

and antisocial behavior. The program supports parents classes, prenatal care, schools,and university preparation classes. The impact o the program has been very positive andhailed as a miracle in a New York Times article (Brooks, 2009).
http://www.hcz.org/about-us/the-hcz-projecthttp://www.hcz.org/about-us/the-hcz-project


21/33

20



Following is a guide to the questions and issues that can help government executives deter-mine whether establishing a co-delivery initiative is an appropriate approach or improvingtheir mission results. These same questions are also appropriate or assessing the use o sel-service.

When Is Co-Delivery an Appropriate Approach?

Co-delivery is not right or every program or service.Given that government services vary across

dierent agencies with dierent stakeholders and dierent objectives, a careul assessmentneeds to be done to understand the risks and value propositions o dierent levels o serviceengagement. For some agencies, sel-service could be the only and the highest level o citizenengagement possible. In some service situations, it is not appropriate to give citizens the con-trol that co-production and co-delivery processes may demand. A careul cost/beneit/risk anal-ysis would reveal what level o engagement is appropriate or a given service environment.

Defne the acceptable level o risk or a co-delivery initiative. This is a key decision that

needs to be made at the design stage. Programs such as Youth Court may be deemed toorisky; yet without taking such risks, successul outcomes are not achievable. It is necessaryto tackle the ear o reasonable risk at the design stage o the co-delivery process. Under-

taking pilots on smaller scale may be a viable way to reduce such risks. Eective co-delivery initiatives ocus on outcomes. These concepts view citizens as

partners, assets and resources who can provide signifcant input to service provision. Thevalue that is created in service initiatives is accomplished through leveraging citizennetworks, through citizen reciprocal relationships, and is based on the outcome or citi-zens.

Start any initiative with the right motivation. Co-delivery initiatives are all about success-ul service outcome that benefts the citizens, leading to signifcant improvement in out-

comes through innovative, creative sparks. The primary motivation or a governmentagency should be improvement in service outcome, and not cost-cutting. I the serviceoutcome is successul, it also will ensure that the process has been an efcient one, withreduced costs and government input and increased return on investment (ROI) maniestingthemselves as by-products. A singular emphasis on cost-cutting is likely to lead to ailure.

Co-delivery has service innovation at its heart. While this is possible in the service designstage, ceding control to the users o service to innovate the process is essential. Whencitizens are involved in designing and delivering services or themselves and or others intheir community, local innovations can ourish. Thus, the service design and the service

proessionals have to be exible enough to let such innovations emerge.

Understand in advance citizens ability and willingness to contribute their eorts in a

particular initiative.The literature suggests that citizens willingness to contribute varies,depending on the policy or geographic areas involved (Boviard and Loeer 2012). We

A Guide for Introducing andImplementing a Co-Delivery Initiative


22/33


23/33

22



example, initiatives such as Youth Court o Washington are raught with risks o the systembecoming arcical with minimal positive outcome. Similarly, the Harlem Childrens Zone initia-tive has high risks o ailure with a potential waste o resources. But in both cases, the valueo a positive outcome can be highly signiicant. Such beneits cannot be derived without tak-ing the risks. It can also be argued that such values cannot be derived otherwisethat is,without a co-delivery approach. While such claims may be arguable, it is clear that values

and risks in such initiatives come with the territory.

What Are Some of the Key Design Questions That Need to be

Addressed?

Following are some issues government leaders should address in advance o committing to aco-delivery initiative:

Distinguish between models or transaction-based versus relationship-based processes.

The orientation oco-delivery service processes ranges rom transaction-based to relation-ship-based. The time rame or service outcome varies accordingly: immediate or transac-tion-based service processes, long-term or relationship-based processes. The nature o

risks with the outcome also varies rom being low or transaction-based services to high orrelationship-based processes. The decision to embark on a relationship-based co-deliveryprocess involves balancing the trade-o between value and risks. In some instances,co-production may be the only strategy that could lead to positive outcomes.

Set clear boundaries between the roles o citizens and government. There is a need or

setting clear boundaries between the tasks that citizens do and sta do so that workproceeds in a coordinated way. However, allow or exibility in design and implementa-tionespecially in relationship-based co-delivery processesand ocus more on the rightoutcome than the right process.

Government has a duty to delineate the separation between the tasks perormed byemployees and proessionals and tasks perormed by citizens. An ill-structured design o

tasks could risk participants stepping on each others toes, leading to conlicts and dissat-isaction with the process. A too-rigid separation, on the other hand, could stile the inno-vations that could potentially arise in co-delivery processes. Agencies need to monitor the

process careully and continuously to learn what works and what does not, and reine thedesign over time.

Technology can be a critical ingredient.Technological innovations have a powerul impacton citizen co-delivery. Even i citizens are motivated only or themselves in providing input,creative design o co-produced and co-delivered service processes based on technology canleverage that input to beneft the whole community. Technology plays a critical leveragingrole in the service process.

Co-delivery initiatives are based on the equality o participants in creating value. Thusthe co-delivery o the service has to oster equal partnership between providers and userso service, aord equal value o dierent kinds o knowledge and skills, and acknowledge

that everyone has something to contribute (Boyle and Harris 2009). As we pointed outearlier, this means a paradigm shit as ar as design is concerned, completely changing theexpectations and approach o both service proessionals and users.

What Are Some of the Key Implementation Steps?

I the design issues above are addressed satisactorily, then government leaders should incor-porate the ollowing ingredients into their implementation:


24/33

23



Engage participants in the development process. It is important to understand the

motivation o the participants and leverage it in designing the initiative. Targeting partici-pants who have the appropriate skills, motivation levels, and time is very critical at thedesign stage. Design should leverage technology signifcantly or transaction-based co-delivery process. Allocating the right amount o resources or testing and support isimportant or a successul launch.

Foster citizens civic engagement and trust. The process o involving citizens in policyenactment and design o public services can provide impetus or raising the level o civicengagement o the whole community, especially in local government applications. Co-deliv-ery can increase government transparency, help citizens understand the inner workings o

government service provision, and help them appreciate the design and constraints odelivering the service. Giving control to citizens in co-delivery processes can also increasethe trust in government.

Share your results transparently.It is important to understand that government agenciesneed to co-create successul citizen engagement processes. So, contribute to caserepositories and disseminate inormation about your initiative by sharing it with otheragencies, regardless o the outcome! It is only through a meta-analysis o these initiatives

that success can be achieved on a consistent basis. Getting the incentives right or citizens to participate in a co-delivery initiative is impor-

tant. It is essential to understand the citizen groups targeted rom their motivationalviewpoint. Is it their own benefts they value most, or is it their reputation in the commu-

nity or their altruistic goals? Since motivations can be dierent, the designs can be madeexible enough to let citizens with dierent motivation co-create and thrive. This certainlycalls or creativity and experimentation in the design process.

Invest in education and training o both government and citizen participants. Co-deliveryand co-production initiatives require education and training o both sets o participantscitizens as well as employees and proessionalsto set expectations, guidelines, and ruleso engagement. While emphasis is generally always put on citizens, preparing the sta orservice is absolutely essential or its success. The design o the initiative should includethis component. In addition, in order to ensure that the momentum o these initiatives is

sustained beyond their initial novelty period, periodic eedback to participants and sta isnecessary to keep participants motivated. Creative ideas rom participants and sta are tobe appropriately channeled or consideration and implementation.

Transparency o service operations is touted as an advantage o citizen engagement.However, rom the agency viewpoint, being completely transparent may not be the beststrategy. Depending on the application areas, appropriate levels o transparency should bedesigned in. This calls or a careul review o tasks involved in the process especially in thecontext o transaction-based services.

Co-delivery and co-production initiatives need to be marketed to the citizens in the right

way to set the intended expectations and rules o engagement. Nothing succeeds like suc-

cess or marketing such initiatives and thus a small successul pilot should always be thefrst step.

How Do You Know If Its Working?

When it comes to assessing the success o co-production or co-delivery initiatives, there isclear demarcation between transaction-based oriented service processes (including sel-service)and relationship-based oriented service co-delivery/co-production processes. In the ormer case,there is a generally clear and more tangible service outcome that is immediate as compared

to relationship-based service processes. The nature o service outcome also tends to be more


25/33

24



standard and measurable using standard service quality metrics (Zeithaml, Parasuraman andBerry 1990). However, in the case o relationship-based service processes, the service out-come is much more diused over time, less tangible, and very customized and contested.This makes the measurement o outcome all the more diicult. The ollowing address ways tomeasure success in the cases o co-production and co-delivery initiatives:

Use a systems approach when measuring progress. Take a systems-orientation in measur-

ing the progress and success o any co-production and co-delivery initiative. Remember itis very likely that costs accrue in one agency while the benefts are reaped by anotheragency. Take these interdependencies into account in measuring the ROI o the programand the success o the outcome.

Create best practices knowledge management systems or co-production initiatives.Knowledge management systems that record specifcs o each co-delivery/co-productioninitiative across government agenciesdesign, implementation, experience, and measure-mentand unction as case repositories can be o signifcant help in providing support andadvice to other entities contemplating similar initiatives. Technological developments andtechnology tools used to support service initiatives can be shared across agencies to osterthe adoption o these models or citizen service.

Focus on the processes in transaction-oriented initiatives. The transaction-based orientedprocesses which include sel-service and some types o co-delivery activities generally needto have some emphasis on the processes, on the relative input o government agenciesversus citizens in terms o all kinds o resources, and clear standards o operations. Theinitiatives need to have multiple targetsan overall goal with a number o intermediatetargets, so that a clear message can be sent out to citizen participants on how the initiativeis meeting goals and making a dierence.

Achievement o the intermediate targets needs to be communicated to the participants sothat they remain motivated to engage in the initiatives. In addition to measuring the out-come quality and participant (both citizens and employee sta) input, government agency

resources should be measured so that ROI o the initiative can be quantiied. Participantgrowth and retention rates vis--vis other channels can be compared to highlight the ei-

cacy o the co-delivery strategy.

Defnition o success varies, depending on perspective. There are two schools othought on relationship-based oriented co-delivery and co-production processes. Oneperspective calls or less emphasis on the process per se and stresses looking outward toincrease social networks to aid in successul outcomes (Horne and Shirley 2009). Thereasoning here is that inward-looking measures such as meeting targets, rigid standards,and process milestones may stie innovation and creativity that are sorely needed orsuccessul outcomes. Since the defnition o success varies rom case to case, the hetero-

geneity may not lend itsel to rigid processes and standards. Thus, the reasoning goes, aspirit o experimentation is needed to allow or out-o-box thinking that may lead tosuccessul outcomes.

Ensure assessments encompass the system, not just the initiative. A measurement issuethat is common to both processes is the tackling the accounting problem (Boyle andHarris 2009). In many cases, service initiatives could lead to costs accruing in onedepartment or agency while the savings and benefts accrue in another agency. For exam-ple, one o the results o amily intervention programs could be to reduce unemploymentand result in ewer ood stamps being distributed. I the accounting o these programs is in

silo systems that do not reconcile with each other, then benefts may be underestimated.This highlights a need or a systems approach in measuring the benefts o such citizenengagement programs.


26/33

25



Assess across initiatives, not just within an initiative. It needs to be stressed that mea-

surement at the individual service initiative level is only the beginning o understandinghow the initiatives can be improved and made more successul. The knowledge that iscreated in a collective analysis o all initiatives, each with dierent business models, withdierent experiences across dierent geographical and service contexts, will be o signif-cant help in improving co-delivery and co-production processes.

Meta-analysis across a number o co-delivery initiatives spanning transaction-based andrelationship-based processes will help identiy common actorsparticipant and staskill, contexts, and applicationsthat lead to successul co-delivery programs. Knowledgemanagement systems that record speciics o each initiativedesign, implementation,

experience, and measurementand unction as case repositories can be o signiicanthelp in providing support and advice to others. Similarly, technological developments andtechnology tools used to support co-delivery can be shared across agencies to oster theadoption o these models or citizen service.


27/33

26



Alord, John (2002). Engaging Public Sector Clients: From Service Delivery toCo-Production. Palgrave Macmillan.

Alord, John (May 2009). Public Value rom Co-Production by Clients. Working Paper.

Bhalla, Gaurav (2010).Collaboration and Co-Creation: New Platforms for MarketingandInnovation. Springer, NY: New York.

Bovaird, Tony and Loeler, Elke (2012). From Engagement to Co-Production: theContributions of Users and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value. ISTR, Voluntas23:11191138.

Boyle, David and Michael Harris (2009). The Challenge o Co-Production, Discussion Paper.NESTA, London, December; available at http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/reports/assets/eatures/the_challenge_o_co-production, accessed on November 11, 2011.

Brooks, David (2009). The Harlem Miracle. New York Times, 7 May. Accessed 6 July 2011,http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/opinion/08brooks.html

Bughin, Jacques, Michael Chui, and James Manyika (2010). Clouds, Big Data, and SmartAssets: Ten Tech-Enabled Business Trends to Watch. McKinsey Quarterly, August 2010,available at https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Clouds_big_data_and_smart_assets_Ten_tech-enabled_business_trends_to_watch_2647, accessed Nov 10, 2011.

Cisco High Tech Policy Blog (2007). The Power o Web 2.0 on Government Legislation.December 13. http://blogs.cisco.com/gov/the_power_o_web_20_on_government_legislation/

Cottam, Hilary and Charles Leadbeater (2009). Health: Co-Creating Services, Report Red

Paper 01. Design Council, London, UK. November.

Deloitte Report (2008). Change your World or the World Will Change you: The Future o

Collaborative Government and Web 2.0. Canada.

Emerson, Heather and Ashlea Powell (2011). Collaborative Service: How Doing Less Can

Satisy Customers More. Rotman Magazine, all issue. p. 4347.

Holmes, Brenton (2011). Citizens Engagement in Policymaking and the Design o Public

Services. Research Paper No. 1., Politics and Public Administration Section, AustralianParliament. July 2011, http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2011-12/12rp01.htm

References
http://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/reports/assets/features/the_challenge_of_co-productionhttp://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/reports/assets/features/the_challenge_of_co-productionhttp://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/opinion/08brooks.htmlhttps://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Clouds_big_data_and_smart_assets_Ten_tech-enabled_business_trends_to_watch_2647https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Clouds_big_data_and_smart_assets_Ten_tech-enabled_business_trends_to_watch_2647http://blogs.cisco.com/gov/the_power_of_web_20_on_government_legislation/http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2011-12/12rp01.htmhttp://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/2011-12/12rp01.htmhttp://blogs.cisco.com/gov/the_power_of_web_20_on_government_legislation/https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Clouds_big_data_and_smart_assets_Ten_tech-enabled_business_trends_to_watch_2647https://www.mckinseyquarterly.com/Clouds_big_data_and_smart_assets_Ten_tech-enabled_business_trends_to_watch_2647http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/08/opinion/08brooks.htmlhttp://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/reports/assets/features/the_challenge_of_co-productionhttp://www.nesta.org.uk/publications/reports/assets/features/the_challenge_of_co-production


28/33

27



Horne, Matthew and Tom Shirley. Co-Production in Public Services: a New Partnership withCitizens, Discussion Paper, London: Cabinet Oice, The Strategy Unit. Available at http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.cabinetoice.gov.uk/media/207033/public_services_co-production.pd, accessed November 10, 2011.

International Association or Public Participation Australasia (2010). The Best o Practice:

Community Engagement in Australasia 20052009. IAP2, 5769.

Loler, Elke, Why Co-Production is an Important Topic or Local Government. White Paper.GovInt.org, available at http://www.govint.org/ileadmin/user_upload/publications/coproduc-tion_why_it_is_important.pd. Accessed Nov 11, 2011.

Novak, Kevin and Michelle Springer (2007). Government as a Participant in Social Networks:Adding Authority to Conversation. Paper presented at the Toward More Transparent

Government Workshop on eGovernment and the Web Conference, June 1819. NationalAcademy o Sciences. Washington D.C.

Pesto, Victor, and Taco Brandsen, ed. (2008). Co-Production: The Third Sector and the

Delivery of Public Services. Rountledge.

Prahalad, C.K. and Ramaswamy, V. (2000). Co-Opting Customer Experience, HarvardBusiness Review, JanuaryFebruary.

Prahalad, C. K and V. Ramaswamy (2004). The Future of Competition: Co-Creating UniqueValue with Customers, Harvard Business School Press.

Roser, T., et al. Co-Delivery: New Pathways to Value, An Overview, White Paper, Promise

Corporation, 2009, available at http://www.promisecorp.com/newpathways/, accessed Nov10, 2011.

Sloan, Dave, Five Signs that Customer Co-Delivery is a Trend to Watch, VentureBeat, July19, 2010, available at http://venturebeat.com/2010/07/19/5-signs-that-customer-co-delivery-is-a-trend-to-watch/, accessed Nov 10, 2011.

Stern, Stean (2011). A Co-Delivery Primer. Harvard Business Review Blog, February 28.Available at http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/02/co-delivery.html, accessed Nov 2, 2011.

Whitaker, Gordon (1980). Co-Production: Citizen Participation in Service Delivery. PublicAdministration Review, 240246.

Winograd, Morley and Michael Hais (2008). Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, andthe Future of American Politics.Rutgers University Press.

Zeithaml, V., A. Parasuraman, and L. Berry (1990). Delivering Quality Service; BalancingCustomer Perceptions and Expectations. The Free Press.
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/207033/public_services_co-production.pdfhttp://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/207033/public_services_co-production.pdfhttp://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/207033/public_services_co-production.pdfhttp://www.govint.org/fileadmin/user_upload/publications/coproduction_why_it_is_important.pdfhttp://www.govint.org/fileadmin/user_upload/publications/coproduction_why_it_is_important.pdfhttp://www.promisecorp.com/newpathways/http://venturebeat.com/2010/07/19/5-signs-that-customer-co-creation-is-a-trend-to-watch/http://venturebeat.com/2010/07/19/5-signs-that-customer-co-creation-is-a-trend-to-watch/http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/02/co-creation.htmlhttp://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKf3k7%2b8wxeCGlbUJwO%2fIDKXuj6YFKukX0qDb9I5fujIgkirM5flmUEEjRyXI%2boG5%2b9Ggs%2bbmTxBa2um%2f%2fLjnhZi%2fYuOGQEk%2fkYEUXrdetophu5UnEWXdZ1o%3dhttp://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKf3k7%2b8wxeCGlbUJwO%2fIDKXuj6YFKukX0qDb9I5fujIgkirM5flmUEEjRyXI%2boG5%2b9Ggs%2bbmTxBa2um%2f%2fLjnhZi%2fYuOGQEk%2fkYEUXrdetophu5UnEWXdZ1o%3dhttp://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKf3k7%2b8wxeCGlbUJwO%2fIDKXuj6YFKukX0qDb9I5fujIgkirM5flmUEEjRyXI%2boG5%2b9Ggs%2bbmTxBa2um%2f%2fLjnhZi%2fYuOGQEk%2fkYEUXrdetophu5UnEWXdZ1o%3dhttp://images.myngp.com/LinkTracker.aspx?crypt=IVi0ax2%2b6UBSinc%2fCPYaKf3k7%2b8wxeCGlbUJwO%2fIDKXuj6YFKukX0qDb9I5fujIgkirM5flmUEEjRyXI%2boG5%2b9Ggs%2bbmTxBa2um%2f%2fLjnhZi%2fYuOGQEk%2fkYEUXrdetophu5UnEWXdZ1o%3dhttp://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2011/02/co-creation.htmlhttp://venturebeat.com/2010/07/19/5-signs-that-customer-co-creation-is-a-trend-to-watch/http://venturebeat.com/2010/07/19/5-signs-that-customer-co-creation-is-a-trend-to-watch/http://www.promisecorp.com/newpathways/http://www.govint.org/fileadmin/user_upload/publications/coproduction_why_it_is_important.pdfhttp://www.govint.org/fileadmin/user_upload/publications/coproduction_why_it_is_important.pdfhttp://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/207033/public_services_co-production.pdfhttp://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/207033/public_services_co-production.pdfhttp://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/+/http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/media/207033/public_services_co-production.pdf


29/33

28



About the Authors

P. K. Kannan is the Ralph J. Tyser Proessor o MarketingScience at the Robert H. Smith School o Business at theUniversity o Maryland, and is also the Chair o the Departmento Marketing. He was the Director or the Center o Excellence inService until December 2009. His current research streamocuses on new product/service development, design, bundlingand pricing digital products and product lines, online attribution

modeling, e-service, and customer relationship management(CRM) and customer loyalty. He has received several grants romthe National Science Foundation (NSF), the Mellon Foundation,SAIC, and PricewaterhouseCoopers or his work in this area, andresearch papers have been published in Marketing Science,Management Science, Journal of Marketing, Journal of

Marketing Research, and Communications of the ACM.

Dr. Kannan was the recipient o the prestigious INFORMS John D. C. Little Award or the BestPaper to be published in Marketing Science, Management Science or the year 2008. Hisresearch also won the INFORMS Society o Marketing Science (ISMS) Practice PrizeCompetition or the year 2007. His paper published in the Journal of Marketing Research

was also the recipient o the 2009 Don Lehmann Award or the best dissertation-based articleto be published in theJournal of Marketing, Journal of Marketing Research or the year2008, and a inalist or the Paul Green Award 2009. Proessor Kannan is the past Chair orthe American Marketing Association SIG on Marketing Research. He is on the editorial boardso Marketing Science, Journal of Marketing, Journal of Service Research, InternationalJournal of Electronic Commerce, and Decision Support Systems. He has edited or co-editedspecial issues or theJournal of MIS and IJEC in the areas o service science and digital con-tent.

Dr. Kannan received his Ph.D. in Management with concentrations in Management Scienceand Marketing rom the Krannert Graduate School o Management, Purdue University. He waspreviously on the aculty o the Department o MIS at the University o Arizona, Tucson or

our years beore joining the Smith Schools Department o Marketing. His research experienceand publications span the areas o Decision Science, IS, Engineering and Marketing. Furtherdetails can be obtained at http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/marketing/aculty/kannan.aspx.

His teaching interests include CRM, new product development, Internet retailing and pricing,and marketing models/research. He has taught courses on these subjects in executive pro-grams or Black & Decker, Home Depot, ARINC, McCormick, CSX, and Northrup Grumman.He has won the Allen Krowe Award or Teaching Excellence (2001). He has corporate experi-ence with Tata Motors and Ingersoll-Rand and has consulted or companies such as Frito-Lay,PepsiCo, Marriott, Giant Food, Black and Decker, SAIC, Fannie Mae, and IBM.
http://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/marketing/faculty/kannan.aspxhttp://www.rhsmith.umd.edu/marketing/faculty/kannan.aspx


30/33

29



Ai-Mei Chang is a Proessor o Systems Management at theUniversity o Maryland, University College, where she teachesgraduate level courses in Inormation Technology Foundations,Inrastructures, and Security, eBusiness, and ProjectManagement.

She received her Bachelor o Science degrees in Computer

Science and Mathematics and her PhD in ManagementInormation Systems rom Purdue University in West Laayette,Indiana.

Her research and teaching interests include e-government andgovernment in a networked economy, with particular emphasis

on strategies, social networking, inormation brokering, mobile commerce, and co-delivery;enterprise architecture, and enterprise security. She has published several articles in scholarlyjournals such as Communications of the ACM, International Journal of Electronic Commerce,IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, IEEE Transactions on Engineering

Management, Decision Support Systems, Journal of Organizational Computing and

Electronic Commerce, Information Systems Research, and Information Processing and

Management.

Dr. Chang has presented her research at conerences such as the Hawaii InternationalConerence on System Sciences, and INFORMS. She is a member o the ACM and IEEEComputer Society. Dr. Chang is an Associate Editor or Decision Support Systems andElectronic Commerce and serves on the editorial board o The Journal o Organizational

Computing and Electronic Commerce. Dr. Chang has been on several National ScienceFoundation review panels. She has also served on the program advisory boards o the eGovconerence, Program Management Conerence, Inormation Security Conerence, and hascochaired several eGov conerence tutorial sessions.

Prior to joining the University o Maryland, Dr. Chang was a Proessor o Systems Management

and Director, Center or eGovernment Education at the Inormation Resources ManagementCollege, National Deense University in Washington, D.C. Beore that, Dr. Chang was anAssistant Proessor o Management Inormation Systems at the Karl Eller School o Business,University o Arizona, Tucson.


31/33

30



To contact the authors:

Dr. P. K. Kannan

Ralph J. Tyser Proessor o Marketing Science

Chair, Department o Marketing

The Robert H. Smith School o Business

University o Maryland, College ParkCollege Park, MD 20742

e-mail: [email protected]

Dr. Ai-Mei Chang

6304 Landon Lane

Bethesda, MD 20817

e-mail: [email protected]

Key Contact Information
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


32/33

Reports from

Assss rc AcRecovery Act Transparency: Learning from States Experience b Facsca m. rjas

Key Actions That Contribute to Successful Program Implementation: Lessons from the Recovery Actb rca

Caaa, Saa o. Acba, Ka A. S, a h. B mwa

Managing Recovery: An Insiders Viewb g. ewa dS

Virginias Implementation of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: Forging a New Intergovernmental

Partnership b A Kaa a Sa C

Caba Acss BasImplementing Cross-Agency Collaboration: A Guide for Federal Managers b Ja Fa

A County Manager s Guide to Shared Services in Local Governmentb ec z a da dabbCollaboration Across Boundaries: Insights and Tips from Federal Senior Executives brsa ola a

Ca ga

Cs e a eBest Practices for Leading Sustainability Efforts b Jaa m. ess

Fs taspac a dcacAssessing Public Participation in an Open Government Era: A Review of Federal Agency Plans b Ca J. lks,

J ga, a da S

ip PfacThe Costs of Budget Uncertainty: Analyzing the Impact of Late Appropriations b Pp g. Jc

Five Methods for Measuring Unobserved Events: A Case Study of Federal Law Enforcementb J W

Forging Governmental Change: Lessons from Transformations Led by Robert Gates of DOD and Francis Collins of NIH

b W. h lab

S CbscA Best Practices Guide for Mitigating Risk in the Use of Social Media b Aa ox

A Best Practices Guide to Information Securityb Ca Ps, t l. rbs, a Jas F. C

tasf WkfcEngaging a Multi-Generational Workforce: Practical Advice for Government Managers b Ssa haa a B y

Implementing Telework: Lessons Learned from Four Federal Agencies b Sc P. o

us tcMitigating Risks in the Application of Cloud Computing in Law Enforcementb Pa W

Challenge.gov: Using Competitions and Awards to Spur Innovation b K C. dsa

Working the Network: A Managers Guide for Using Twitter in Government b is m

F a f s f iBm C pbcas, s Cs wbs a www.businessofgovernment.org.

Recent reports available on the website include:
http://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/recovery-act-transparency-learning-experience-stateshttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/recovery-act-transparency-learning-experience-stateshttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/key-actions-contribute-successful-program-implementation-lessons-recovery-acthttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/key-actions-contribute-successful-program-implementation-lessons-recovery-acthttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/key-actions-contribute-successful-program-implementation-lessons-recovery-acthttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/managing-recovery-view-insidehttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/managing-recovery-view-insidehttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/virginia-implementation-american-recovery-and-reinvestment-acthttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/virginia-implementation-american-recovery-and-reinvestment-acthttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/virginia-implementation-american-recovery-and-reinvestment-acthttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/implementing-cross-agency-collaboration-guide-federal-managershttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/implementing-cross-agency-collaboration-guide-federal-managershttp://bit.ly/11CjuNQhttp://bit.ly/11CjuNQhttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/collaboration-across-boundaries-insights-and-tips-federal-senior-executiveshttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/collaboration-across-boundaries-insights-and-tips-federal-senior-executiveshttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/collaboration-across-boundaries-insights-and-tips-federal-senior-executiveshttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/collaboration-across-boundaries-insights-and-tips-federal-senior-executiveshttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/collaboration-across-boundaries-insights-and-tips-federal-senior-executiveshttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/best-practices-leading-sustainability-effortshttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/best-practices-leading-sustainability-effortshttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/assessing-public-participation-open-government-erahttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/assessing-public-participation-open-government-erahttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/assessing-public-participation-open-government-erahttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/costs-budget-uncertainty-analyzing-impact-late-appropriationshttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/costs-budget-uncertainty-analyzing-impact-late-appropriationshttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/five-methods-measuring-unobserved-events-case-study-federal-law-enforcementhttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/five-methods-measuring-unobserved-events-case-study-federal-law-enforcementhttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/forging-governmental-change-lessons-transformations-led-robert-gates-dod-and-francis-collins-http://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/forging-governmental-change-lessons-transformations-led-robert-gates-dod-and-francis-collins-http://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/forging-governmental-change-lessons-transformations-led-robert-gates-dod-and-francis-collins-http://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/best-practices-guide-mitigating-risk-use-social-mediahttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/best-practices-guide-mitigating-risk-use-social-mediahttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/best-practices-guide-information-securityhttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/best-practices-guide-information-securityhttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/engaging-multi-generational-workforce-practical-advice-government-managershttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/engaging-multi-generational-workforce-practical-advice-government-managershttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/implementing-telework-lessons-learned-four-federal-agencieshttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/implementing-telework-lessons-learned-four-federal-agencieshttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/mitigating-risks-application-cloud-computing-law-enforcementhttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/mitigating-risks-application-cloud-computing-law-enforcementhttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/challengegov-using-competitions-and-awards-spur-innovationhttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/challengegov-using-competitions-and-awards-spur-innovationhttp://bit.ly/LNImHGhttp://bit.ly/LNImHGhttp://bit.ly/LNImHGhttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/challengegov-using-competitions-and-awards-spur-innovationhttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/mitigating-risks-application-cloud-computing-law-enforcementhttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/implementing-telework-lessons-learned-four-federal-agencieshttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/engaging-multi-generational-workforce-practical-advice-government-managershttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/best-practices-guide-information-securityhttp://www.businessofgovernment.org/report/best-practice

beyond citizen engagement

Documents