Following the yellow brick road? (Dis)enchantment with co-design, co-production and value co-creation in public services

Figures & data

Figure 1. Laing’s (2003) service spectrum.

Table 1. Waves of service-based thinking in public services and what they mean for the ‘co-’ paradigm.

Period	Label	Key characteristics	What it means for the ‘co-’ paradigm
First Wave	Civic participation (Public services as public goods)	Involving the public in urban renewal etc. Influence of product-dominant logic	Co-production Co-creation of services
Second Wave	Public-service dominant logic (Public services inherently different than goods)	Engagement with public service users – inside the organization to outside Use of tools and techniques (e.g. lean)	Value co-creation (organizations as judges) Co-design (organization led)
Third Wave	Public service logic (Focus on user and community engagement such as co-design, co-innovation)	Focus on client/user groups’ involvement in their own services Outside-in thinking Engagement in co-governance	Value co-creation (individuals as ultimate judges) Co-design (not necessarily organization led)
FourthWave	Public service value eco-system (Focus on stakeholders co-creating value)	Moving beyond co-production as an action and towards co-design, and co-innovation of services	Value co-creation (no one judge)

Figure 2. The papers in this issue moving knowledge towards a new paradigm in public service management

Table 2. Where does value accrue?

Who primarily benefits →	Individual	Community	Organization	Society
Who primarily participates ↓
Individual	Rational self-interest	Public contribution ‘giving back’	Co-production as resource shifting	Highly altruistic volunteering
Community	Volunteering as self-development	‘Good Samaritan’ behaviours around self-interest	Volunteering as resource provision	Community-based volunteering
Organization	Traditional service delivery, private value (direct value)	Public value	Managerial self-interest	Wider public value ‘deep value’, ‘diffused value’
Society	It is more difficult to conceive of value delivered by a society that is not directly delivered by one of the other three groups. Society, therefore, is a net receiver of value in our conceptualization.

Laing, A. 2003. “Marketing in the Public Sector: Towards a Typology of Public Services.” Marketing Theory 3: 427–445. doi:10.1177/1470593103042005.

 Google Scholar