Qianli Yuan
ABSTRACT
Recent years have witnessed growing public administration practitioners’ and researchers’ interests in the involvement of citizens as co-producers of public service design and delivery. With advanced information and communication technologies (ICT) favoring multilateral interactivity and ubiquitous communication, governments are able to expand new opportunities for public service co-production. This literature review contributes to our understanding of current knowledge about the use of ICTs in co-production and the potential outcomes. The results of the review show three models of ICT-enabled co-production: (1) Citizen-sourcing; (2) Automatic Co-production; (3) Government as an Open Platform, each with its unique features in terms of citizens’ contributions, citizens’ capacities, and government openness. This review highlights future developments in electronic sensors and the use of data could lead to new approaches to co-production. ICT-enabled coproduction is promising to bring positive outcomes on public service provision and citizen engagement, yet the effectiveness of those practices is conditioned on factors both inside and outside government organizations. The review also indicates that ICT-enabled co-production is not a panacea and potential dark sides need to be acknowledged. Future research needs to address critical drivers and barriers for governments to utilize different models of ICT-enabled coproduction as well as to evaluate the outcomes of those practices in multiple contexts.
- Alford, J. 2009. Engaging Public Sector Clients: From Service-Delivery to Co-Production. Springer.Google Scholar
- Alford, J. 2014. The Multiple Facets of Co-Production: Building on the work of Elinor Ostrom. Public Management Review. 16, 3 (Apr. 2014), 299–316.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Athey, S. 2017. Beyond prediction: Using big data for policy problems. Science. 355, 6324 (Feb. 2017), 483–485.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Barrett, M.A. 2013. Big Data and Disease Prevention: From Quantified Self to Quantified Communities. Big Data. 1, 3 (Aug. 2013), 168–175.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bertot, J.C. 2010. Crowd-sourcing Transparency: ICTs, Social Media, and Government Transparency Initiatives. Proceedings of the 11th Annual International Digital Government Research Conference on Public Administration Online: Challenges and Opportunities (Puebla, Mexico, 2010), 51–58.Google Scholar
- Bovaird, T. 2007. Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services. Public administration review. 67, 5 (2007), 846–860.Google Scholar
- Bovaird, T. and Loeffler, E. 2012. From Engagement to Co-production: The Contribution of Users and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 23, 4 (Dec. 2012), 1119–1138.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brabham, D.C. 2014. Crowdsourcing Applications for Public Health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 46, 2 (Feb. 2014), 179–187.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brabham, D.C. 2009. Crowdsourcing the Public Participation Process for Planning Projects. Planning Theory. 8, 3 (Aug. 2009), 242–262.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brandsen, T. 2018. Co-Creation and Co-Production in Public Services. Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. 6.Google Scholar
- Brandsen, T. and Honingh, M. 2018. Definitions of Co-Production and Co-Creation. Co-Production and Co-Creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. 9.Google Scholar
- Brandsen, T. and Honingh, M. 2015. Distinguishing Different Types of Coproduction: A Conceptual Analysis Based on the Classical Definitions. Public Administration Review. 76, 3 (2015), 427–435.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brudney, J.L. and England, R.E. 1983. Toward a Definition of the Coproduction Concept. Public Administration Review. 43, 1 (1983), 59–65.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Cardullo, P. and Kitchin, R. 2019. Being a ‘citizen’ in the smart city: up and down the scaffold of smart citizen participation in Dublin, Ireland. GeoJournal. 84, 1 (Feb. 2019), 1–13.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Castelnovo, W. 2018. Citizens Coproduction, Service Self-Provision and the State 2.0. Network, Smart and Open. Springer, Cham. 109–125.Google Scholar
- Chatfield, A.T. 2013. Tsunami early warnings via Twitter in government: Net-savvy citizens’ co-production of time-critical public information services. Government Information Quarterly. 30, 4 (Oct. 2013), 377–386.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Chessa, S. 2016. Empowering mobile crowdsensing through social and ad hoc networking. IEEE Communications Magazine. 54, 7 (Jul. 2016), 108–114. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chun, S. 2010. Government 2.0: Making connections between citizens, data and government. Information Polity. 1,2 (2010), 1–9.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Clark, B.Y. 2016. A Framework for Using Crowdsourcing in Government. International Journal of Public Administration in the Digital Age (IJPADA). 3, 4 (Oct. 2016), 57–75.Google Scholar
- Clark, B.Y. and Brudney, J. 2017. Citizen Representation in City Government-Driven Crowdsourcing. Technical Report #ID 2473543. Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
- Clark, B.Y. and Shurik, M. 2014. Do 311 Systems Shape Citizen Satisfaction with Local Government?. Technical Report #ID 2491034. Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
- Concilio, G. 2017. Empowering Citizens with Open Data by Urban Hackathons. 2017 Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM) (May 2017), 125–134.Google Scholar
- Cordella, A. and Paletti, A. 2018. ICTs and value creation in public sector: Manufacturing logic vs service logic. Information Polity: The International Journal of Government & Democracy in the Information Age. 23, 2 (Apr. 2018), 125–141.Google Scholar
- Crowdsensing: State of the Art and Privacy Aspects: 2014. https://resources.infosecinstitute.com/crowdsensing-state-art-privacy-aspects/. Accessed: 2019-03-22.Google Scholar
- Dailey, D. and Starbird, K. 2014. Journalists as Crowdsourcerers: Responding to Crisis by Reporting with a Crowd. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: The Journal of Collaborative Computing. 23, 4–6 (Dec. 2014), 445–481. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dawes, S.S. 2016. Planning and designing open government data programs: An ecosystem approach. Government Information Quarterly. 33, 1 (Jan. 2016), 15–27.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Desouza, K.C. and Bhagwatwar, A. 2014. Technology-Enabled Participatory Platforms for Civic Engagement: The Case of U.S. Cities. Journal of Urban Technology. 21, 4 (Oct. 2014), 25–50.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dutton, W.H. 2011. Networking Distributed Public Expertise: Strategies for Citizen Sourcing Advice to Government. Technical Report #ID 1767870. Social Science Research Network.Google Scholar
- Ernst, C. 2017. Collaboration and crowdsourcing in emergency management. International Journal of Pervasive Computing and Communications. 13, 2 (Jun. 2017), 176–193.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Evans, L. 2018. Voices in the cloud: social media and trust in Canadian and US local governments. Records Management Journal. 28, 1 (Mar. 2018), 18–46.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Falco, E. and Kleinhans, R. 2018. Digital Participatory Platforms for Co-Production in Urban Development: A Systematic Review. International Journal of E-Planning Research (IJEPR). 7, 3 (Jul. 2018), 1–27. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gagliardi, D. 2017. Information and communication technologies and public participation: interactive maps and value added for citizens. Government Information Quarterly. 34, 1 (Jan. 2017), 153–166.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ganapati, S. 2011. Uses of Public Participation Geographic Information Systems Applications in E-Government. Public Administration Review. 71, 3 (2011), 425–434.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gao, X. 2018. Networked Co-Production of 311 Services: Investigating the Use of Twitter in Five U.S. Cities. International Journal of Public Administration. 41, 9 (Jul. 2018), 712–724.Google Scholar
- Grossman, G. 2018. Crowdsourcing accountability: ICT for service delivery. World Development. 112, (Dec. 2018), 74–87.Google Scholar
- Haltofova, B. 2018. Using Crowdsourcing to Support Civic Engagement in Strategic Urban Development Planning: A Case Study of Ostrava, Czech Republic. Journal of Competitiveness. 10, 1 (Jun. 2018), 85–103.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hartmann, S. 2016. Opportunities and Challenges for Civic Engagement: A Global Investigation of Innovation Competitions. International Journal of Knowledge Society Research. 7, 3 (Jul. 2016), 1–15.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Heinzelman, J. and Waters, C. 2010. Crowdsourcing Crisis Information in Disaster- Affected Haiti. (2010), 16.Google Scholar
- Hilgers, D. and Ihl, C. 2010. Citizensourcing: Applying the concept of open innovation to the public sector. International Journal of Public Participation. 4, 1 (2010), 67–88.Google Scholar
- Holmes, B. 2011. Citizens’ engagement in policymaking and the design of public services. (2011), 64.Google Scholar
- Johnson, P. and Robinson, P. 2014. Civic Hackathons: Innovation, Procurement, or Civic Engagement?: Civic Hackathon: Procurement or Civic Engagement? Review of Policy Research. 31, 4 (Jul. 2014), 349–357.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kahila-Tani, M. 2016. Let the Citizens Map—Public Participation GIS as a Planning Support System in the Helsinki Master Plan Process. Planning Practice & Research. 31, 2 (Apr. 2016), 195–214.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Kurniawan, M. and de Vries, W.T. 2015. The Contradictory Effects in Efficiency and Citizens’ Participation when Employing Geo-ICT Apps within Local Government. Local Government Studies. 41, 1 (Jan. 2015), 119–136.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lee, S. 2012. Open innovation in the public sector of leading countries. Management Decision. 50, 1 (Feb. 2012), 147–162.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lember, V. 2018. The Increasing Role of Digital Technologies in Co-Production and Co-Creation. Co-Production and Co-Creation : Engaging Citizens in Public Services. Routledge. 115–127.Google Scholar
- Linders, D. 2012. From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly. 29, 4 (Oct. 2012), 446–454.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Liu, H.K. 2017. An analysis of online interaction in idea generation for public policies. Information Polity. 22, 2–3 (Jan. 2017), 117–135.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Liu, H.K. 2017. Crowdsourcing Government: Lessons from Multiple Disciplines. Public Administration Review. 77, 5 (Sep. 2017), 656–667.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Loeffler, E. and Bovaird, T. 2018. Assessing the Effect of Co-Production on Outcomes, Service Quality and Efficiency. Co-Production and Co-Creation : Engaging Citizens in Public Services. Routledge. 269–280.Google Scholar
- Loeffler, E. and Bovaird, T. 2016. User and Community Co-Production of Public Services: What Does the Evidence Tell Us? International Journal of Public Administration. (Nov. 2016), 1–14.Google Scholar
- Loukis, E. and Charalabidis, Y. 2015. Active and Passive Crowdsourcing in Government. Policy Practice and Digital Science. Springer, Cham. 261–289.Google Scholar
- McBride, K. 2018. Open Government Data Driven Co-creation: Moving Towards Citizen-Government Collaboration. Electronic Government (2018), 184–195.Google Scholar
- McNutt, J.G. 2016. The diffusion of civic technology and open government in the United States. Information Polity. 21, 2 (Jul. 2016), 153–170.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Medaglia, R. 2012. eParticipation research: Moving characterization forward (2006–2011). Government Information Quarterly. 29, 3 (2012), 346–360.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Meijer, A. 2016. Coproduction as a structural transformation of the public sector. International Journal of Public Sector Management. 29, 6 (Aug. 2016), 596–611.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Meijer, A.J. 2012. Co-production in an Information Age: Individual and Community Engagement Supported by New Media. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 23, 4 (Dec. 2012), 1156–1172.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Meijer, A.J. 2014. New Media and the Coproduction of Safety: An Empirical Analysis of Dutch Practices. The American Review of Public Administration. 44, 1 (Jan. 2014), 17–34.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mergel, I. 2015. Open collaboration in the public sector: The case of social coding on GitHub. Government Information Quarterly. 32, 4 (Oct. 2015), 464–472.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mergel, I. 2015. Opening Government: Designing Open Innovation Processes to Collaborate With External Problem Solvers. Social Science Computer Review. 33, 5 (Oct. 2015), 599–612. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mergel, I. 2014. The Challenges of Challenge.Gov: Adopting Private Sector Business Innovations in the Federal Government. 2014 47th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (Jan. 2014), 2073–2082. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mergel, I. and Desouza, K.C. 2013. Implementing Open Innovation in the Public Sector: The Case of Challenge.gov. Public Administration Review. 73, 6 (Nov. 2013), 882–890.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Moon, M.J. 2017. Evolution of co-production in the information age: crowdsourcing as a model of web-based co-production in Korea. Policy and Society. 0, 0 (Sep. 2017), 1–16.Google Scholar
- Mueller, J. 2018. Citizen Design Science: A strategy for crowd-creative urban design. Cities. 72, (Feb. 2018), 181–188.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Munro, R. 2013. Crowdsourcing and the crisis-affected community. Information Retrieval Journal. 16, 2 (Apr. 2013), 210–266. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nabatchi, T. 2017. Varieties of Participation in Public Services: The Who, When, and What of Coproduction. Public Administration Review. 77, 5 (2017), 766–776.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nam, T. 2012. Suggesting frameworks of citizen-sourcing via Government 2.0. Government Information Quarterly. 29, 1 (Jan. 2012), 12–20.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Nambisan, S. 2008. Transforming Government through Collaborative Innovation. Public Manager; Alexandria. 37, 3 (2008), 36–41. DOI:https://search.proquest.com/openview/5148b52ec3eea1d569fda380dc4b0cf7/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=47605.Google Scholar
- Needham, D.C. and Carr, S. 2009. Co-production: an emerging evidence base for adult social care transformation. Social Care Institute for Excellence.Google Scholar
- Noveck, B.S. 2009. Wiki Government: How Technology Can Make Government Better, Democracy Stronger, and Citizens More Powerful. Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
- Ostrom, E. 1996. Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development. World Development. 24, 6 (Jun. 1996), 1073–1087.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Pak, B. 2017. FixMyStreet Brussels: Socio-Demographic Inequality in Crowdsourced Civic Participation. Journal of Urban Technology. 24, 2 (Apr. 2017), 65–87.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Paletti, A. 2016. Co-production Through ICT in the Public Sector: When Citizens Reframe the Production of Public Services. Digitally Supported Innovation. Springer, Cham. 141–152.Google Scholar
- Pestoff, V. 2012. Co-production and Third Sector Social Services in Europe: Some Concepts and Evidence. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 23, 4 (Dec. 2012), 1102–1118.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Royo, S. and Yetano, A. 2015. “Crowdsourcing” as a tool for e-participation: two experiences regarding CO2 emissions at municipal level. Electronic Commerce Research. 15, 3 (Sep. 2015), 323–348.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sawhney, N. 2015. Civic Engagement through DIY Urbanism and Collective Networked Action. Planning Practice & Research. 30, 3 (Jun. 2015), 337–354.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Schmidthuber, L. and Hilgers, D. 2018. Unleashing Innovation beyond Organizational Boundaries: Exploring Citizensourcing Projects. International Journal of Public Administration. 41, 4 (Mar. 2018), 268–283.Google Scholar
- Schuurman, D. 2012. Smart Ideas for Smart Cities: Investigating Crowdsourcing for Generating and Selecting Ideas for ICT Innovation in a City Context. Journal of Theoretical & Applied Electronic Commerce Research. 7, 3 (Dec. 2012), 49–62.Google ScholarDigital Library
- See, L. 2013. Comparing the Quality of Crowdsourced Data Contributed by Expert and Non-Experts. PLOS ONE. 8, 7 (Jul. 2013), e69958.Google Scholar
- Sokolov, A. and Verevkin, A. 2016. Digitalization and Evolution of Civic Engagement: New Ways of Participation in Public Policy. Digital Transformation and Global Society (2016), 269–274.Google Scholar
- Soomro, K. 2017. Participatory governance in smart cities: the urbanAPI case study. International Journal of Services Technology & Management. 23, 5/6 (Sep. 2017), 419–444.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Thomas, J.C. 2014. Citizen, Customer, Partner: Engaging the Public in Public Management : Engaging the Public in Public Management. Routledge.Google Scholar
- Toots, M. 2017. Open Data as Enabler of Public Service Co-creation: Exploring the Drivers and Barriers. 2017 Conference for E-Democracy and Open Government (CeDEM) (May 2017), 102–112.Google Scholar
- Torres, L.H. 2007. Citizen sourcing in the public interest. Knowledge Management for Development Journal. 3, 1 (2007), 134–145.Google Scholar
- Vamstad, J. 2012. Co-production and Service Quality: The Case of Cooperative Childcare in Sweden. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 23, 4 (Dec. 2012), 1173–1188.Google Scholar
- Verschuere, B. 2012. Co-production: The State of the Art in Research and the Future Agenda. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations. 23, 4 (Dec. 2012), 1083–1101.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Voorberg, W.H. 2015. A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review. 17, 9 (Oct. 2015), 1333–1357.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Webster, C.W.R. and Leleux, C. 2018. Smart governance: Opportunities for technologically-mediated citizen co-production. Information Polity. 23, 1 (Jan. 2018), 95–110.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Whitaker, G.P. 1980. Coproduction: Citizen Participation in Service Delivery. Public Administration Review. 40, 3 (May 1980), 240.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zuiderwijk, A. and Janssen, M. 2014. Open data policies, their implementation and impact: A framework for comparison. Government Information Quarterly. 31, 1 (Jan. 2014), 17–29.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Zuiderwijk, A. and Janssen, M. 2014. The Negative Effects of Open Government Data - Investigating the Dark Side of Open Data. Proceedings of the 15th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research (New York, NY, USA, 2014), 147–152.Google ScholarDigital Library
Recommendations
Value creation, ICT, and co-production in public sector: bureaucracy, opensourcing and crowdsourcing
dg.o '17: Proceedings of the 18th Annual International Conference on Digital Government ResearchThis paper contributes to the e-government literature discussing the role of ICTs as enabler of different modes of production of public services. E-government developments are often associated with organization transformations aimed to increase the ...
Public e-Procurement: Advantages, Limitations and Technological "Pitfalls"
ICEGOV '15-16: Proceedings of the 9th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic GovernancePublic purchase is an implementing tool of public policy that promotes the public value. Framed by a policy and management strategy, it focus the economic efficiency, but also improves the social promotion of socio-economic reality. In the context of ...
ICT-enabled co-production of public services: Barriers and enablers. A systematic review
Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are being heralded by governments and international organizations as a means of augmenting co-production of public services and a number of major initiatives are being rolled out around the world. ...
Comments