Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in
Book cover

Setting Foundations for the Creation of Public Value in Smart Cities pp 165–195Cite as

Innovations in Co-Created Smart City Services

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: Public Administration and Information Technology ((PAIT,volume 35))

Abstract

This study is focused on co-creation of public services in the smart city from an open innovation management perspective. Drawing on both literature and empirical data from four smart city projects in Europe, it discusses the context of collaborative service creation (cocreation) requiring public service providers to engage with the citizens in the whole life cycle of service delivery (co-production). An integrated conceptual approach to co-production is adopted in order to understand how public service providers and users can co-create both individual and public value through their interaction in co-producing the services people appreciate and need, to impact on citizen and communal welfare. In particular, the sets of skills necessary for co-producing smart city services effectively are identified, allowing public service providers to gather the necessary user insight and their operational processes and to identify appropriate management approaches for delivering effective high quality urban services. Research is based on experience gained from SmartiP, a European multidisciplinary project focused on the co-production of citizens-centered internet-enabled services in the public sector. The use made by public service managers of a bespoke Self-Assessment Toolkit is analysed to identify what they prioritised when reporting their experiences of co-production. The results suggest that service managers need not only the capacity and skills for managing co-creation activities but for employing a governance structure that encourages collaboration between the multiplicities of stakeholders involved in the smart city open innovation eco-system. The findings can be used by both scholars and city administrations and public servants concerned with smart city services to drive co-creation activities and to redefine relevant operating processes to ensure sustainable value co-creation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD   109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    A full transcript of this qualitative content analysis on which this summary is based, containing the verbatim statements categorised against this analytical framework is available for inspection. It is not included here because it runs to 11 pages.

References

  • Adams, R., Bessant, J., & Phelps, R. (2006). Innovation management measurement: A review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(1), 21–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alawadhi, S., Aldama-Nalda, A., Hafedh, C., Ramon Gil-Garcia, J., Leung, S., & Mellouli, S. (2012). Building understanding of Smart City initiatives. In H. J. Scholl, M. Janssen, et al. (Eds.), Electronic government. EGOV 2012 Lecture Notes in Computer Science (Vol. 7443). Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Alford, J. (2009). Engaging public sector clients: From service-delivery to co-production. Macmillan: Palgrave.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, P. K. (2013). 311 services: A real-world perspective. Public Administration Review, 73(5), 702–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnstein, S. R. (July 1969). A Ladder of Citizen Participation. JAIP, 35(4), 216–224.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Azman, K. (2011). The problem of “democratic deficit” in the European Union. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 1(5), 242–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bakıcı, T., Almirall, E., & Wareham, J. (2013). A smart city initiative: The case of Barcelona. Journal of the Knowledge Economy, 4(2), 135–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bellamy, C. (2000). The politics of public information systems. In G. Garson (Ed.), Handbook of public information systems. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bergvall-Kåreborn, B., & Ståhlbröst, A. (2009). Living lab: An open and citizen-centric approach for innovation. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(4), 356–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T., & Downe, J. (2008). Innovation in public engagement and co-production of services. Policy Paper for Department for Communities and Local Government: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271517523_Innovation_In_Public_Engagement_And_Co-Production_Of_Services_Policy_Paper_for_Department_for_Communities_and_Local_Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T., & Loeffler, L. (2016). User and community co-production of public services: What does the evidence tell us? International Journal of Public Administration, 39(13), 1006–1019.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovaird, T., Van Ryzin, G., Loeffler, E., & Parrado, S. (2015). Activating citizens to participate in collective co-production of public services. Journal of Social Policy, 44, 1): 1–1):23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, D., & Harris, M. (2009). The challenge of co-production: How equal partnerships between professionals and the public are crucial to improving public services. London: New Economic Foundation (NEF), The Lab/NESTA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandsen, T., & Honingh, M. (2016). Distinguishing different types of coproduction: A conceptual analysis based on the classical definitions. Public Administration Review, 76(3), 427–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carstensen, H. V., & Bason, C. (2012). Powering collaborative policy innovation: Can innovation labs help? The Innovation Journal, 17(1), 2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chathoth, P., Altinay, L., Harrington, R. J., & Chan, E. S. W. (2013). Co-production versus co-creation: A process based continuum in the hotel service context. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 32, 11–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chourabi, H., Nam, T., Walker, S., Ramon Gil-Garcia, J., Mellouli, S., Nahon. K., Pardo, T. A., & Scholl, H. J. (2012). Understanding Smart Cities: An Integrative Framework. In: Proceedings 45th Hawaii International Conference on System Science. http://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/journals/hicss_2012_smartcities/hicss_2012_smartcities.pdf

  • CitizenLab. (2017). What is the difference between citizen engagement and participation? Retrieved from https://www.citizenlab.co/blog/civic-engagement/what-is-the-difference-between-citizen-engagement-and-participation/

  • de Jong, M., Joss, S., Schraven, D., Zhan, C., & Margot, W. (2015). Sustainable–smart–resilient–low carbon eco–knowledge cities: Making sense of a multitude of concepts promoting sustainable urbanization. Journal of Cleaner Production, 109, 25–38.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devendra, D. (2010). Measuring e-Governance as an innovation in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 27(1), 41–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doroshenko, M., Miles, I., & Vinogradov, D. (2013). Knowledge intensive business services as generators of innovations. (Higher School of Economics Research Paper No. WP BRP 12/STI/2013). Retrieved from SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2282511

  • Draetta, L., & Labarthe, F. (2010). The Living Labs at the test of user-centred innovation - Proposal of a methodological framework. Lugano: CE 2010 – Collaborative Environments for Sustainable Innovation, Lugano, Switzerland.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dunston, R., Lee, A., Boud, D., Brodie, P., & Chiarella, M. (2009). Co-production and health SystemReform – From Re-imagining to Re-making. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68(1), 39–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durose, C., Mangan, C., Needham, C., & Matthew, J. R. (2013). Transforming local public services through co-production. In AHRC connected communities Programme. http://www.bhamsouthcommunitysafety.co.uk/wpcontent/uploads/2015/03/AHRC-Connected-CommunitiesTransforminlocal-public-services-through-co-production.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: A social construction approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39(2), 327–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eger, J. M. (2009). Smart growth, smart cities, and the crisis at the pump a worldwide phenomenon. I-WAYS - The Journal of E-Government Policy and Regulation, 32(1), 47–53.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farr, M. (2013). Citizens and the co-creation of public service innovations. In S. Osborne & L. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of innovation in public services. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farr, M. (2016). Co-production and value co-creation in outcome-based contracting in public services. Public Management Review, 18(5), 654–672.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giffinger, R., Fertner, C., Kramar, H., & Meijers, E. (2007). Smart cities: Ranking of European medium-sized cities. Centre of Regional Science, Vienna University of Technology. http://www.smartcities.eu/download/smart_cities_final_report.pdf

  • Gil-Garcia, J. R., Helbig, N., & Ojo, A. (2014). Being smart: Emerging technologies and innovation in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 31(S1), 11–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gil-García, J. R., & Pardo, T. (2005). E-government success factors: Mapping practical tools to theoretical foundations. Government Information Quarterly, 22(2), 187–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Garcia, J. R., Pardo, T., & Nam, T. (2016). Smarter as the new urban agenda. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Gottfridsson, P. (2012). Joint service development – The creations of the prerequisite for the service development. Managing Service Quality, 22(1), 21–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gronroos, C. (2011). Value co-creation in service logic: A critical analysis. Marketing Theory, 11(3), 279–301.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in governance and public service: Past and present. The Innovation Journal: The Public Sector Innovation Journal, 17(1), 1–13.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollands, R. (2008). Will the real smart city please stand up? City, 12(3), 303–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huxham, C. (2003). Theorizing collaboration practice. Public Management Review, 5(3), 401–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hwang, M. I., & Thorn, R. G. (1999). The effect of user engagement on system success: A meta-analytical integration of research findings. Information and Management, 35, 229–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, E., & Hansen, D. (2011). Design lessons for smart governance infrastructures. In D. Balutis & T. Buss (Eds.), Transforming American governance 3.0: Rebooting the public square? New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Julian, G. (2013). Social media and citizen engagement. Retrieved from http://www.georgejulian.co.uk/2013/01/22/social-media-and-citizen-engagement/

  • Juujrvi, S., & Pesso, K. (2013). Actor roles in an urban living lab: What can we learn from Suurpelto Finland? Technology Innovation Management Review, 3, 22–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, J., Hancock, M., & Hu, M.-C. (2014). Towards an effective framework for building smart cities: Lessons from Seoul and San Francisco. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 89, 80–99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, W. T., & Shao, B. B. M. (2000). The relationship between user participation and system success: a simultaneous contingency approach. Information and Management, 37(6), 283–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-7206(99)00055-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindgren, I., & Jansson, G. (2013). Electronic services in the public sector: A conceptual framework. Government Information Quarterlay, 30(2), 163–172.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mauher, M., & Smokvina, V. (2016). Digital to intelligent local government transition framework. MIPRO 2006, 29th International Convention (p. 11).

    Google Scholar 

  • Meijer, A., & Bolívar, M. P. R. (2016). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 392–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mooij, J. (2003). Smart governance? Politics in the policy process in Andhra Pradesh, India (ODI Working Papers 228). Retrieved from http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/1793.pdf

  • Mulder, I., Velthuas, D., & Kriesn, M. (2008). The living labs harmonization cube: Communicating living lab essentials. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks, 10, 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nabatchi, T., Sancino, T., & Sicilia, M. (2016). Varieties of participation in public services: The who, when, and what of coproduction. Public Administration Review, 77(5), 766–776.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nam, T., & Pardo, T. (2011, September 26–28). Smart city as urban innovation: Focusing on management, policy, and context. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance, Tallinn, Estonia (pp 185–194). Retrieved from https://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/journals/icegov_2011_smartcity/icegov_2011_smartcity.pdf

  • Nam, T., & Pardo, T. A. (2014). The changing face of a city government: A case of Philly311. Government Information Quarterly, 31, 1–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nambisan, S., & Baron, R. A. (2009). Virtual customer environments: Testing a model of voluntary participation in value co-creation activities. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 26(4), 388–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Naphade, M., Banavar, G., Harrison, C., Paraszczak, J., & Morris, R. (2011). Smarter cities and their innovation challenges. Comput. (Long. Beach. Calif), 44(6), 32–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nesti, G. (2017). Living labs: A new tool for co-production? In A. Bisello et al. (Eds.), Smart and sustainable planning for cities and regions (Green energy and technology). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orr, K., & Bennett, M. (2011). Public administration scholarship and the politics of coproducing academic–practitioner research. Public Administration Review, 72(4), 487–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S. (2010). The new public governance?: Emerging perspectives on the theory and practice of public governance. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S., & Brown, L. (2011). Innovation, public policy and public services delivery in the UK: The word that would be king? Public Administration, 89(4), 1335–1350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S., & Brown, L. (2013). Introduction: Innovation in public services. In S. Osborne & L. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of innovation in public services. Cheltenham, England: Edward Elgar.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S., Radnor, Z., & Nasi, G. (2013). A new theory for public service management? Toward a (public) service-dominant approach. The American Review of Public Administration, 43(2), 135–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S., Radnor, Z., & Strokosch, K. (2016). Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: A suitable case for treatment? Public Management Review, 18(5), 639–653.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osborne, S., & Strokosch, K. (2013). It takes two to tango? Understanding the coproduction of public services by integrating the services management and public administration perspectives. British Journal of Management, 24(1), 31–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pallot, M., Trousse, B., Senach, B., & Scapin, D. (2010). Living lab research landscape: From user centred design and user experience towards user cocreation. In First EU Summer School ‘living labs’.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, H., & Walasek, H. (Eds.). (2016). Co-production in action. Gothenburg: Mistra Urban Futures.

    Google Scholar 

  • Papastathopoulou, P., & Hultink, E. (2012). New service development: An analysis of 27 years of research. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 29(5), 705–714.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paskaleva, K. (2009). Enabling the smart city: The progress of city e-governance in Europe. International Journal of Innovation and Regional Development, 1(4), 405–422.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paskaleva, K. (2011). The smart city: A nexus for open innovation? Intelligent Buildings International, 3(3), 153–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Paskaleva, K., & Cooper, I. (2017). Co-production and governance for smart city services: Learning from practice: Introduction. International Journal of Services, Technology and Management, 23(5/6), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Paskaleva, K., & Cooper, I. (2018). Open innovation evaluation for Internet-enabled services in smart cities. Technovation, Online July 28

    Google Scholar 

  • Paskaleva, K., Cooper, I., & Goncilo, G. (2016). Tools and techniques for co-producing smart city services: Does one size fit all? In M. R. B. Bolívar (Ed.), Smart technologies for smart governments: Transparency, efficiency and organizational issues (Public Administration and Information Technology) (Vol. 24). Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patel, Z. (2015). Co-producing urban services. International Development Planning Review, 37(2), 187–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, A. F., Storbacka, K., & Frow, P. (2008). Managing the co-creation of value. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 36(1), 83–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perry, B., & Atherton, M. (2017). Beyond critique: The value of co-production in realising just cities? Local Environment, 22(1), 1–16.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pestoff, V., Brandsen, T., & Verscheure, B. (Eds.). (2012). New public governance, co-production and the third sector. London, England: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Potts, J. (2009). The innovation deficit in public services: The curious problem of too much efficiency and not enough waste and failure. Innovation: Management, Policy & Practice, 11, 34–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Radnor, Z., Osborne, S. P., Kinder, T., & Mutton, J. (2014). Operationalizing co-production in public services delivery: The contribution of service blueprinting. Public Management Review, 16(3), 402–423. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.848923

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ramaswamy, V., & Ozcan, K. (2014). The co-creation paradigm. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Roser, T., De Fillippi, R., & Samson, A. (2013). Managing your co-creation mix: Co-creation ventures in distinctive contexts. European Business Review, 25(1), 20–41.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sancino, A. (2016). The meta coproduction of community outcomes: Towards a citizens’ capabilities approach. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(1), 409–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scholl, H. J., Barzilai-Nahon, K., Ahn, J.-H., Popova, O. H., & Re, B. (2009). E-commerce and e-government: How do they compare? What can they learn from each other? Proceedings of the 42nd Hawaii international conference on system sciences (pp. 1–10). Waikoloa: IEEE.

    Google Scholar 

  • SmartiP (2010) Smart metropolitan areas realised through innovation and people, http://www.eurocities.eu/eurocities/projects/SMARTiP-Smart-Metropolitan-Areas-Realised-Through-Innovation-and-People&tpl=home

  • Spohrer, J., & Maglio, P. (2008). The emergence of service science: Toward systematic service innovations to accelerate co-creation of value. Production and Operations Management, 17(3), 238–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Strokosch, K. (2013). Co-production and innovation in public services: Can co-production drive innovation? In S. Osborne & L. Brown (Eds.), Hand-book of innovation in public services. Cheltenham, England: Edgar Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svensson, G., & Gronroos, C. (2008). Service logic revisited: Who creates value? And who co-creates? European Business Review, 20(4), 298–314.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2003). Nurturing collaborative relations: Building trust in inter-organizational collaboration. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 39(1), 5–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S., & Lusch, R. (2004). Evolving to a new dominant logic for marketing. Journal of Marketing, 68(1), 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Voorberg, V. J., Bekkers, M., & Tummers, L. G. (2014). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Alliance Manchester Business School, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK

    Krassimira Paskaleva

  2. Eclipse Research, Cambridge, UK

    Ian Cooper

Authors
  1. Krassimira Paskaleva
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ian Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Krassimira Paskaleva .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Accounting and Finance, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    Manuel Pedro Rodriguez Bolivar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Paskaleva, K., Cooper, I. (2019). Innovations in Co-Created Smart City Services. In: Rodriguez Bolivar, M.P. (eds) Setting Foundations for the Creation of Public Value in Smart Cities. Public Administration and Information Technology, vol 35. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98953-2_7

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation