Chapter for book by: John Gotze (ed) State of the eUnion Government 2.0 and Onwards User and community co-production of public services and public policies: the role of emerging technologies Authors: Tony Bovaird, INLOGOV, University of Birmingham, UK, James Downe, Cardiff Business School, Cardiff University,UK and Elke Löffler, Governance International, UK Abstract User and community co-production are becoming buzz phrases in public policy. However, there are some important limitations to ‘self-interested’ co-production. A more systematic and co-ordinated approach to collective co-production is needed if it is to rise above the levels which will result from purely ‘self-organising’ activities. The more collective forms of co-production are likely to have particular significance for the public sector, where they can be encouraged, but citizens are currently more commonly engaging in individual co-production. Consequenly, encouragement now needs to be given to mechanisms which lead to more collective co-production. Internet-enabled technologies, particularly Web 2.0 applications, fulfil the requirements which make collective co-production easier and more likely. Principal contact: Tony Bovaird Professor of Public Management and Policy INLOGOV and Centre for Public Service Partnerships University of Birmingham Edgbaston BIRMINGHAM B15 2TT Tel: 0121 414 5006 Email: T.Bovaird@bham.ac.uk User and community co-production of public services and public policies: the role of emerging technologies Co-production is rapidly becoming one of the most talked-about themes in partnership working in public services and public policy in Europe, North America and Australia, as our recent Policy Paper for UK demonstrated. However, there has been no coherent approach as yet at government level or in the academic community to bring together the evidence on the potential – and the limitations – of user and community coproduction of public services and public policies. This chapter explores two very different theoretical strands in current thinking on user and community co-production, which predict very different roles – and outcomes – from co-production. One approach focuses on how co-production can deliver individualised benefits from the design and operation of public services, while the second approach concentrates on more collective benefits which co-production can bring. We show that this second approach is currently under-developed and then go on to explore how the potential benefits of ‘collectivised’ co-production might be more effectively captured by public service organisations. We suggest that the technological solutions required for ‘collective co-production’ are distinctly different from those involved in ‘individualised co-production’ and that collective co-production based on Web 2.0 applications may in future offer major improvements to public service outcomes. The academic literature has viewed co-production through the perspectives of economics - looking at jointness in production; service management – where Normann has argued that service effectiveness depends critically on mobilising the contributions which users are uniquely able to provide; and consumer psychology – which suggests that giving users a major role in service design and/or operation brings more user satisfaction and commitment to the service. But these approaches have severe limitations – they share the assumption that co-production depends on individuals interacting with service professionals, either as users or as volunteers in the community. This means that the outcomes of user and community co-producers can be calculated as the sum of users’ outcomes. However, this radically oversimplifies public service co-production. First, the user is often not the only person to benefit from the way the service is co-produced – many others in the community may also benefit. Secondly, much co-production is engaged in because of desire to help others, rather than simply to produce benefits for oneself. In practice, improved user’s outcomes produce a series of different types of benefits for others. These external benefits include:  Those close to the user (carers, friends, volunteers, etc.), who experience two kinds of benefit when the user’s outcomes improve: o A reduction in the level of effort they need to make to maintain the service user’s quality of life   o Pleasure in the user’s improved quality of life Other users who can learn how to make better use of the service by the example set by the service co-producer (e.g. the ‘expert patient’ who has learnt to cope with the chronic diabetes or self-administered dialysis) Other citizens who anticipate that they may need to use the service at some time in the future and receive benefits from seeing that the service can be more costeffective than they had previously suspected. These benefits to society are real and they are important. But how are they to be produced? They are reaped by others than the person whose behaviour produces them. Co-production which is engaged in as a philanthropic, rather than selfish, act is not easy to rationalise under the normal analysis of welfare economics or public choice (unless one hypothesises the existence of some direct return to the active giver by way of ‘feelgood factor’, which unfortunately is not measurable and is almost tautological - we only suspect it is there because the giver’s behaviour suggests it is there). However, much ‘collective co-production’ behaviour, such as volunteering, is of this type and produces collective benefits which can be of major significance. Some light is thrown on the level of co-production in practice by a recent undertaken for the European Presidency, comparing the current state of user and community coproduction in the Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, and the UK, based on a survey of about 1000 citizens in each of the five countries, focus groups with service professionals and managers in each country, and some in-depth interviews with a range of officers of public service organisations (in public, private and third sector organisations) and with representatives of users and community groups. The study focused on three different sectors which reflect distinctly different types of government functions: o Community safety, as an example of coercive action on the part of the state o Local environment, as an example of the regulatory function of the state o Public health, as an example of the welfare improvement function of the state. Co-production by citizens in community safety, local environment and public health may involve a whole range of activities, from helping to identify the problems, helping to prevent the problems, right through to solving the problems and dealing with the damage done by the problems. In the survey, given the limited resources available and the short time afforded by telephone interviews, we decided to survey all citizens, rather than survey service users only (since it is much harder to achieve representative samples of the latter). The survey focused particularly on preventative activities of citizens, asking them what they currently do – and what they would be prepared to do in the future - to help public agencies to prevent problems from arising. However, in the community safety questions, citizens were also asked about how they personally dealt with some problems, specifically how they react when they come across crime and anti-social behaviour – do they try to help the police to deal with the problem (or even take some form of direct action themselves)? How important is the role of citizens in public service delivery? When we asked this question of the focus groups in the five countries, the overall reaction of professional service providers was “we don’t know … but probably very little”. A few participants even complained about the relevance of this question. In particular, in the three Danish focus groups sessions, representatives of public agencies initially had great difficulty in understanding the topic to be discussed. The same applied to the focus groups focussing on health issues in most countries, where participants had to be challenged again and again by the facilitators to come up with examples of citizen involvement in service delivery. Only the German and UK focus groups on health issues shared the view that prevention has become a more important area in health care and that citizen involvement plays an important role in this area. However, in dramatic contrast, when we asked citizens about their level of involvement in prevention activities related to community safety, local environment and health, and when we asked them how they co-operate with the police when being confronted with crime or anti-social behaviour, the results showed a significant level of co-production by citizens in the five countries studied in all three sectors. Looking at what kind of contributions citizens make on a regular basis in each of these sectors, an interesting pattern emerges (see Graph 1). In general, we can see that European citizens in these five countries show particularly high levels of engagement when they can undertake activities which do not need much effort by themselves and do not require getting in touch with third parties. This applies, for example, to locking doors and windows in their home before going out, recycling household rubbish and saving water and electricity, which about 80 percent of citizens indicate as doing often. All these activities do not require interactions with other citizens or public sector organisations. When it comes to makes changes to the personal lifestyle, there is a sharp drop – e.g. in the number of citizens who walk, cycle or use public transport, change to a more healthy diet or try to exercise. Just about 50% of citizens reported undertaking these often. Clearly, there are also activities that citizens are less inclined to undertake, at least on a regular basis. Interestingly, all the activities at the bottom of the ranking list imply getting involved with others – be it a neighbour, a doctor, the police or strangers. At the very bottom of the responses on prevention activities is ‘seeking advice from the police on safety issues‘. Only 5% of European citizens often ask the police for advice on how to best protect their property, while 14 percent sometimes do so. UK citizens are most inclined to make use of this free service provided by the police, whereas Danish and Czech citizens are the most reluctant. In particular, the Czech case is interesting. As the citizen survey shows, Czech citizens feel relatively unsafe in their neighbourhood and we know from national crime statistics that property-related crimes made up 70 percent of all crimes in 2004. Even though the number of police staff dealing with crime prevention has increased in recent years, crime levels have stayed persistently high. In this difficult situation, the Czech Ministry of Interior launched the ‘Safe Locality’ Programme in 2007 which encourages citizens to take action to protect their property. According to a Czech survey on safety perceptions of the population, 40 percent of citizens know about this programme (see the interview with the Czech Ministry of Interior at www.govint.org). However, as representatives of the local and national police and other participants suggested in Prague during a discussion on the role of citizens in public safety issues, levels of trust in the police are still low, which may be why only 1.3% of Czech citizens in the survey often contact the police for crime prevention advice. As Graph 1 shows, there are quite a few other activities with rates of response similarly low to those in citizens seeking advice from the police. In particular, there were very low numbers of respondents who participate regularly in groups, whether the topic is community safety, local environment or health. This clearly demonstrates that seeking to tackle these issues simply through organised associations has major limitations – and these limitations are likely to persist. This indicates the importance, to which we will return later, of getting people involved on an individual basis, and not simply through third sector organisations. It is not surprising that only a very few citizens wish to get engaged in some organised form on a regular basis. This is where the so-called ‘usual suspects’ come in, even though some countries seem to have more than others. From Graph 2, we can see that the level of regular participation of European citizens in groups and organisations is highest in health (9.7%), followed by environment (7.9%) and then safety (5.9%). This is an interesting finding since the index of overall co-production activities of European citizens is highest in local environment and not in health. The fact that more citizens ‘co-produce’ in health by getting organised may indicate a lack of availability of individual forms of coproduction which may partly be due to the attitudes of professionals working in health care as participants in several focus groups on health issues suggested. The number of ‘organised activists’ in community safety and environmental issues is lowest in Denmark (2.4% in safety-related organisations and 3.5 % in environmental organisations), whereas the UK has the highest proportion of citizens who often take part in organisations to improve safety in their neighbourhood (12.2%). This finding is not surprising, given that there are more than 10 million members in UK neighbourhood watch groups. The UK also has the highest number of citizens who often get involved in environmental groups and organisations (9%) but also a high proportion of Czech citizens often participate in groups or organisations to improve the local environment (8.4%). As far as the participation of citizens in groups and organisations dealing with health issues is concerned 13.5 % of Czech citizens indicate that they participate often in such groups whereas in France only 6.5 % of citizens do so, with citizens in other countries falling between these figures. Looking at the figures in Graph 1 again, it is interesting to see how many people are prepared often to take steps to encourage others to behave more appropriately, e.g. telling them not to drop rubbish (26%) and intervening to stop anti-social behaviour (17%). Given that these are high effort actions, and not to be undertaken lightly, this indicates that there is a significant group of the population who see themselves as real ‘activists’, at least in those areas about which they genuinely care. It also suggests that the deterrent to involvement in group activities is not inherently the effort involved. Graph 1: A ranking list of co-production: What citizens like doing best and least Co-production indicators (in rank order) Take care to lock doors, w indow s Try to recycle household rubbish Try to save w ate/electricity at hom e Walk, cycle, or use public transport Change to a m ore healthy diet Try to exercise Keep an eye on neighbor's hom e Ask neighbors to w atch your hom e See doctor for health check Take care of sick fam ily or friends Tell others not to drop rubbish Intervene to stop anti-social behavior Report crim e to police Report com m unity safety problem Participate in health group (often) Participate in environm ental group (often) Participate in public safety group (often) Ask police for safety advice 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Percent 'often' (or 'yes') Graph 2: Levels of regular participation in community safety, local environmental and health organisations/groups across countries How often do you participate in a group or organisation that works to improve ... 16 Percent "Often" 14 12 10 Safety Environment 8 Health 6 4 2 0 Total France Germany UK Czech Denmark In summary, the survey has shown that … o there is already a lot more citizen involvement in public service delivery than the professionals taking part in our focus groups wanted to acknowledge. This is particularly evident in local environmental and health issues but also, though to a lesser degree, in community safety issues. o there is likely to be more citizen involvement in service delivery in the future due to the demographic changes taking place in most European countries. The involvement of citizens in delivering public services clearly increases with age, so that the ‘ageing society’ is good news in terms of increasing levels of ‘coproduction’. o Citizens are most willing to make a contribution towards improving public services when it involves them in relatively little effort and when they do not have to work closely with other citizens or staff or professionals in the government. What does this imply for public service delivery and the attempts which have been made to improve service quality? So far, the quality improvement approaches in most public services have tended to focus on how professionals can improve service quality and outcomes. Indeed, the most commonly used quality assurance systems tend to view service users and society from the perspective of what results are achieved for them, rather than viewing them as a resource. Once they are seen as a resource, working with them has a very different set of implications for the management and governance of public services. However, this perspective is still far from universal - as our focus group participants suggested, not all professionals working in public services are prepared yet to give service users a more active role. Relative public value of ‘individual’ and ‘collective’ co-production While the results above indicate that citizens are less inclined to spend their coproduction efforts in group activities, this does not mean that such collectivised coproduction is unimportant. As examples of how important it is to the creation of public value, in the UK there are about 350,000 school governors, who not only serve on committees to help run schools but also a legal liability for the affairs of the school; about 5.6m people help to run sports clubs; 750,000 people volunteer to assist teachers in schools; 170,000 volunteer in the NHS, befriending and counselling patients, driving people to hospital, fund raising, running shops and cafes, etc. Admittedly, these numbers are small (with the exception of the sports club volunteers), compared to the 1.8m regular blood donors, the 8m people signed up as potential organ donors, and the 10m people within Neighboorhood Watch schemes, all of which are more ‘lonely’ activities, which do not need to be programmed to the same extent within a person’s daily timetable. Nevertheless, the value of the contribution made by co-producers cannot be estimated simply by a head count. The potential ‘external’ benefits listed in an earlier section suggest that collective co-production may be sufficiently attractive to make its increase an appropriate target for public intervention, if the costs were kept commensurate. In the next sections, we consider how this might be achieved. The drivers of collective co-production There are a number of different theoretical approaches which can help us to explain what lies behind the marked differences in citizen responses in respect of individual and collective co-production: Social network theory: interactions between network agents lead to system behaviour which is non-predictable from individual expectations because of the character of the links between actors in the network. Social movement theory: mobilisation of mass action is achieved through individual word of mouth and commitments to small-scale joint action, in connected chains of actors, leading to major collective actions, which reinforce the commitment of the actors to their localised choices. Complexity theory: small changes in initial conditions can lead to very different system behaviours where actors are connected as complex adaptive systems, e.g. where confidence in medical advice is undermined in relation to one immunisation (like MMR), which is therefore shunned by most citizens, although other vaccinations continue to be popular and unproblematic. What each of these theoretical approaches has in common is that it is based on a nonlinearity between the initial inputs to the system and the eventual outcomes. While the mechanisms by means of which this non-linearity takes effect differ between the theories and the models derived from them, they each result in the characteristics of collective behaviour being very different from those of the individual behaviours which triggered it. The implications are important for public service organisations – for maximum returns from the potential of co-production, these collective behaviours may need to be activated, through some form of system meta-interventions. Of course, there are not only positive synergies – where negative synergies occur, which threaten to drive systems towards stasis or even destruction, by the same logic there is a need for system meta-interventions which make these effects less likely or less powerful. Possible strategies for activating the positive synergies which could make user and community co-production more cost-effective would include:     Increasing the incentives for collective behaviour Decreasing the disincentives for collective behaviour Increasing the connectivity of those giving rise to positive synergies in collective behaviour Decreasing the connectivity of those giving rise to negative synergies in collective behaviour In this chapter, we focus on the latter two strategies around connectivity. Its importance derives from the fact that connectivity determines the level (and direction) of nonlinearities in the system through three different characteristics:    strength of the connectivity degree of non-linearity (‘curvature’) in the connectivity relationship likelihood of changes of direction in system behaviour over time (determined by the ‘recursiveness’ of the system, broadly the number of ‘turning points’ in the underlying relationship, or ‘equation’, describing system behaviour) In ordinary personal relationships, these characteristics can be seen respectively in terms of how the relationship is viewed by an individual:    a strong relationship will lead more often to positive reciprocal behaviours (such as the giving of meaningful presents) than a weak relationship, while a weak relationship will lead more often to negative reciprocal behaviours (such as trading insults in public) a highly non-linear relationship will mean that quite small changes in behaviours by one or other person will produce marked responses from the other person (e.g. a hint of overworking by one person will lead to an offer of sharing of some tasks from several colleagues) a highly recursive relationship will mean that a stimulus by one person will, over time, result in unexpected switches in behaviour by the other person (e.g. allowing a colleague to miss a deadline at work because of family circumstances means that a similar excuse is often wheeled out in the future, without any forewarning being given) These characteristics can be embedded in the relationship in one of two ways – they can either be a result of the ‘personalities’ of the two actors in the relationship (i.e. their predisposition to act in particular ways) or they can be a result of the mechanisms through which they interact (i.e. the ‘technology’ of the relationship). In this chapter, our interest is in how the latter of these two mechanisms, the technology of the relationship between actors, might influence the balance of ‘individual’ versus ‘collective’ co-production. In a personal relationship, the key way in which the strength of the relationship is reinforced is through mutual contact. From its advent, even a simple one-to-one communications technology like the telephone greatly increased the possibility of frequent contact between people in any kind of relationship (at least, for those who had the means to use it). However, increased frequency is not enough to help a relationship to flourish – the content of the interaction is also important. We can hypothesise, then, that the telephone may have polarised relationships – where the content of calls was regarded as positive, the increased frequency was likely to produce stronger bonds, while weaker bonds (and even outright antipathy) may have been produced in those cases of increased contact where the content was regarded as unattractive. As regards the effect of the telephone on the ‘curvature’ of relationships, we need to ask if the intensity of relationships was in any way enhanced by the advent of the telephone. The evidence base is not detailed or scientific but nevertheless very compelling – people found that it was very much more personal and intimate to talk to each other on the telephone than to write. It seems likely that this new form of connectivity had a more than proportionate effect on the ability of people to sustain their relationships while apart. Finally, the effect on a relationship of using the telephone to keep in constant contact is not necessarily monotonic – satiation can mean that a turning point occurs, beyond which diseconomies are experienced. For example, someone who rings too often can become perceived as a nuisance, rather than a close friend or can evince a reaction which is either one of delight or irritation, depending on the circumstances (and irrespective of the content of the call). It seems likely that the replacement of landlines by mobile phones has not fundamentally altered the effect of the telephone on connectivity within relationships, although it has strengthened each of the three elements of connectivity. However, the internet, and especially Web 2.0 platforms, now offer rather different potential for the three dimensions of connectivity. First, they are likely to lead to substantially stronger connectivity because of the ease and low cost of use (at least for those people who are ‘wired’). Secondly, there is likely to be very strong ‘curvature’ in relationships which are webenabled, partly because of the multiple formats of web-enabled communication – email, webcam, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, etc. Moreover, the potential for each partner to introduce other actors into any given conversation is greatly expanded – the power of the ‘Reply to all’ button in email, something which is still very restricted on the telephone, where conference calls are possible but not easy (and not cheap). Twitter actually broadcasts all tweets automatically to everyone who wants to access them. Finally, the recursiveness of web-enabled relationships is more difficult to estimate a priori. On the one hand, it is just as possible to get too many emails (or tweets or Facebook messages) from some contacts as it is on the telephone. However, emails have the useful characteristic that there is no expectation that the person to whom one writes will be online and able to reply immediately. Therefore, emails retain a ‘batch processing’ expectation, which means that they can be dealt with when one wishes to, without necessarily hurting the feelings of the person who is waiting. (Of course, not replying to reminder emails has more or the less the same effect on a relationship as not replying to a reminder telephone call). It may be that this latter phenomenon reduces the recursiveness of internet-enabled connectivity. Taking these characteristics of internet-enabled connectivity into account, we might expect that not only would the internet increase the potential for collective co-production, it might also broaden its reach to a wider range of potential co-producers. This argument suggests that collective co-production is likely now to be more practical to mobilise than in previous periods. It remains to be seen whether these improvements in connectivity will be enough to overcome the individualist preference-based obstacles to collectivebased co-production, which we outlined from the European survey. Public interventions to promote internet-enabled collective co-production Our European study revealed that policy makers and practitioners are still very ambivalent about the contribution which co-production does and could make to public service improvement. While they recognise that co-production exists, and can both ensure that services are more in line with user needs and are more fully resourced than they otherwise would be, they are also reluctant to admit to the volume of co-production activity and the contribution which it makes to public value. However, a series of internet-enabled interventions are emerging which have the effect of enhancing collective co-production. We list here some examples from the UK but similar developments can be found in the other countries in our European study. Co-planning: South Bristol Digital Neighbourhoods has been working with Bristol City Council to help local residentsto use the council’s consultation site www.askbristol.com, which is part of the EU e-participation project Citizenscape, and allows residents’ comments to influence council decisions. The current consultation project focuses on traffic noise pollution, and the website uses video, sound bites, images and discussion forums to encourage debate. Residents can nominate their favourite quiet areas of the city and plot them on a map – and this map is hosted on the interactive information touchscreen at local shopping centres for those who don’t have Internet access at home. The information gathered feeds in to how Bristol implements the city’s noise action plan. Co-design: The Birmingham’s 'Open City' project was developed by Digital Birmingham to create new digital resources, going beyond forums and blogs, which will enable citizens better to contribute to local decision-making. It develops an online community that allows people to influence the planning and delivery of services, through an interactive approach which generates discussion and debate between web users. Co-commissioning: experiments in internet-based participatory budgeting are becoming more common, especially in Germany, where Berlin-Lichtenberg has run its PB process through the internet, by post and through local meetings and, more recently, Köln has run a purely internet-based PB exercise, which is currently being evaluated. Co-managing: a ‘Smart Community’ is a neighbourhood where the residents are better connected to each other and to the businesses and agencies that serve them, including local TV channels and local information and online services, with specialist provision for those who need it. It is intended to make residents feel more a part of their local neighbourhood and to make the area as a whole more desirable as a place to live. It is achieved through a local high bandwidth network connecting all homes, businesses and other service providers, which also enables cost-effective management of the digital services delivered to individual homes. Co-delivering: Cheltenham Borough Council initially discovered the power of Web 2.0 in July 2007, as a result of massive local flooding, when its old web site could not respond to the flow of news and information, so it set up a 'flood blog' to provide a responsive and fast service to residents. Subsequently, this has triggered widespread adoption of Web 2.0 by Council staff and the public. Residents can publish images to the Cheltenham Flickr feed and movies through the Cheltenham YouTube channel - directly to the Council's site, all controlled via the CMS. Co-monitoring: websites such as FixMyStreet.com allow residents to report problems in streetscene, e.g. rubbish tipping, potholes in the road, incorrect street signs, etc., including posting photos of the problem on the website, so that fast action can be taken. Co-evaluating: websites such as patientopinion.com allow NHS patients to post their experiences of healthcare on the internet for other users to read and benefit from and they can rate NHS services on criteria such as standard of medical care. In each of these cases, while individuals have been helped by the internet to co-produce public services with professionals from public agencies, the co-production process has had a collective character and had outcomes for more people than those who directly took part in the co-production process. Conclusions This chapter highlights the limitations of ‘self-interested’ co-production and suggests that a more systematic and co-ordinated approach to collective co-production is needed if it is to rise above the levels which will result from purely ‘self-organising’ activities. It suggests that collective co-production is likely to have particular significance for the public sector, where it can be encouraged, but the behaviour of citizens is more likely to give rise to individual co-production, unless encouragement is given to mechanisms which lead to more collective co-production. Internet-enabled technologies fulfil the requirements which make collective co-production easier and more likely. Acknowledgements Our thanks go to the Department of Communities and Local Government which sponsored some of the research on which this chapter is based. References Tony Bovaird (2005), “E-government and e-governance: organisational implications, options and dilemmas” in Mehdi Khosrow-Pour (ed), Practicing E-Government: A Global Perspective, New York: Idea-Group Inc for OECD. Tony Bovaird (2007), “Beyond engagement and participation – user and community coproduction of public services”, Public Administration Review, 67 (5): 846-860 (2007). Tony Bovaird and James Downe (2008), Innovation In Public Engagement And CoProduction Of Services. Policy Paper to Department of Communities and Local Government. London: CLG. Elke Löffler, Tony Bovaird, Salvador Parrado and Greg van Ryzin (2008), “If you want to go fast, walk alone. If you want to go far, walk together”: Citizens and the coproduction of public services. Report to the EU Presidency. Paris: Ministry of Finance, Budget and Public Services. Richard Normann (1984), Service Management: Strategy and Leadership in the Service Business, John Wiley and Sons.