This article was downloaded by: [Erasmus University]
On: 09 August 2015, At: 23:57
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954
Registered office: 5 Howick Place, London, SW1P 1WG
Click for updates
Public Management Review
Publication details, including instructions for authors
and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rpxm20
A Systematic Review of Co-
Creation and Co-Production:
Embarking on the social
innovation journey
W. H. Voorberg
a
, V. J. J. M. Bekkers
a
& L. G. Tummers
b
a
Department of Public Administration, Erasmus
University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
b
Center for the Study of Law & Society, University of
California, Berkeley, Berkeley, USA
Published online: 30 Jun 2014.
To cite this article: W. H. Voorberg, V. J. J. M. Bekkers & L. G. Tummers (2014):
A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social
innovation journey, Public Management Review, DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2014.930505
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the
information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.
However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or
suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed
in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the
views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should
not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions,
claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities
whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection
with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.
Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-
licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly
forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [Erasmus University] at 23:57 09 August 2015
A SYSTEMATIC
REVIEW OF
CO-CREATION AND
CO-PRODUCTION
Embarking on the social
innovation journey
W. H. Voorberg, V. J. J. M. Bekkers
and L. G. Tummers
W. H. Voorberg
Department of Public Administration
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Rotterdam
The Netherlands
E-mail: voorberg@fsw.eur.nl
V. J. J. M. Bekkers
Department of Public Administration
Erasmus University Rotterdam
Rotterdam
The Netherlands
E-mail: bekkers@fsw.eur.nl
L. G. Tummers
Center for the Study of Law & Society
University of California, Berkeley
Berkeley
USA
E-mail: tummers@fsw.eur.nl
Abstract
This article presents a systematic review of
122 articles and books (1987–2013) of co-
creation/co-production with citizens in public
innovation. It analyses (a) the objectives of
co-creation and co-production, (b) its influ-
ential factors and (c) the outcomes of co-
creation and co-production processes. It
shows that most studies focus on the identi-
fication of influential factors, while hardly any
attention is paid to the outcomes. Future
studies could focus on outcomes of co-crea-
tion/co-production processes. Furthermore,
more quantitative studies are welcome,
given the qualitative, case study, dominance
in the field. We conclude with a research
agenda to tackle methodological, theoretical
and empirical lacunas.
Key words
Co-creation, co-production, public-sector
innovation, social innovation, systematic
review
Public Management Review, 2014
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2014.930505
© 2014 Taylor & Francis
Downloaded by [Erasmus University] at 23:57 09 August 2015
INTRODUCTION
Social innovation and co-creation are ‘magic concepts’ (cf. Pollitt and Hupe 2011)
which, during recent years, have been embraced as a new reform strategy for the public
sector, given the social challenges and budget austerity with which governments are
wrestling. Social innovation is an inspiring concept, but at the same time it is weakly
conceptualized, due to the dominance of grey, policy-oriented literature (Bates 2012;
Cels, De Jong, and Nauta 2012; Kamoji, Orton, and Williamson 2009; Mulgan 2009;
Mair 2010). In this study, we define social innovation as the creation of long-lasting
outcomes that aim to address societal needs by fundamentally changing the relation-
ships, positions and rules between the involved stakeholders, through an open process
of participation, exchange and collaboration with relevant stakeholders, including end-
users, thereby crossing organizational boundaries and jurisdictions (Hartley 2005; Bason
2010; Osborne and Brown 2011; Sorensen and Torfing 2011; Chesbrough 2003,
2006). In the literature, the participation of end-users is indicated as co-creation
(Von Hippel 1987). But what do we know about co-creation with citizens as end-
users in a public-sector context?
In the private sector, co-creation is based on two trends. First, corporations are
challenged to produce their goods more efficiently. As a result, end-users are defined as
possible co-producers who take over specific activities in the production chain (Prahalad and
Ramaswamy 2000; Vargo and Lusch 2004; Von Hippel 2007). Second, end-users may
become co-creators whose experiences with products or services can be of added value for a
company. End-users are an interesting source of product and service innovation (Prahalad
and Ramaswamy 2000; Vargo and Lusch 200 4). As a result, research showed that co-
creation not only influences customer satisfaction and loyalty, but also helps firms to achieve
competitive advantage (Grissemann and Stokburger-Sauer 2012).
But, in the public sector, these end-users are citizens. According to the European
Commission (European Commission 2011, 30), ‘social innovation mobilizes each
citizen to become an active part of the innovation process’. If citizen participation is
considered as a necessary condition for social innovation in the public sector, it is
important that we have systematic knowledge regarding the conditions under which
citizens are prepared to embark on the ‘social innovation journey’ (cf. Van de Ven et al.
2008). This leads to the following research question:
What do we know about the types, objectives, outcomes and conditions under which co-creation
and co-production with citizens take place in innovation processes in the public sector?
This research question can be divided into three sub-questions:
1. What are the objectives of co-creation and co-production with citizens and what are the
relevant types of co-creation in the public sector?
2. Which factors influence co-creation and co-production processes with citizens?
3. What are the outcomes of co-creation and co-production processes with citizens?
2 Public Management Review
Downloaded by [Erasmus University] at 23:57 09 August 2015
To answer these questions, we conducted a systematic review of the academic
literature regarding public co-creation and co-production with citizens.
This brings us to the demarcation of the co-creation concept. Co-creation refers to
the active involvement of end-users in various stages of the production process (Prahalad
and Ramaswamy 2000; Vargo and Lusch 2004). This is more specific than, for instance,
the broad concept of participation, which could also refer to passive involvement. In the
literature regarding active citizen involvement, the term co-production also occurs
(Brandsen and Pestoff 2006; Verschuere, Brandsen, and Pestoff 2012). Since the
concept co-creation and co-production seems to be related (Vargo and Lusch 2004)
or maybe even interchangeable (Gebauer, Johnson, and Enquist 2010), adding the
concept of co-production to our review can teach us important lessons about co-
creation. Therefore, our systematic review includes both the literature on co-creation
during public innovation and the literature on co-production during public innovation
(see also Verschuere, Brandsen, and Pestoff 2012). We acknowledge that co-creation is
also related to other concepts such as public participation, collaborative governance or
community involvement. However, in order to enhance the feasibility of this study, we
decided to focus on co-creation and co-production.
The relevance of our review is twofold. First, given the importance that policy
makers attach to citizen engagement in social innovation, we aim to provide a more
evidence-based overview regarding the conditions under which citizens co-create or co-
produce. Second, the choice for a systematic review helps to make the current body of
knowledge more transparent in a reproducible way. This contrasts with a more
traditional literature review (Liberati et al. 2009). During the systematic review, we
adhere as much as possible to the widely used ‘Preferred Reporting Items for
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’ (The PRISMA Statement, referred to as
PRISMA from here on), which ensures transparent and complete reporting (Liberati
et al. 2009; Moher et al. 2009).
This brings us to the outline of this article. In the section ‘Research strategy’,we
will describe the methodology used to conduct the review. The section ‘Results of the
systematic review’ will present the results of our review. We conclude our analysis in
the section ‘Conclusion and future research’, with a conclusion and a future
research agenda on co-creation and co-production in innovation processes in the public
sector.
RESEARCH STRATEGY
Study and report eligibility
Systematic reviews are based on replicable and transparent steps. The checklist for each
step is presented in Appendix 1.
Voorberg et al.: Systematic review of co-creation and co-production 3
Downloaded by [Erasmus University] at 23:57 09 August 2015
