Baltic Sea Symposium: Typology of Co-Creation

1. Baltic Sea Symposium, • 11 – 13 September 2019 at Open Air Museum, LT Typology of co-creation • Hans Jørgen Vodsgaard Interfolk Institute for Civil Society

2. Definition of “co-creation” Overall definition of co-creation: Cross-sector actors together develop and produces new welfare services. More specific: Processes where a public actor develops and/or produces welfare together with non-public actors. These can be citizens, citizen groups, associations or other civil society organizations. (see, fx key research reviews in the field; Verschuere, Brandsen and Pestoff 2012, Löffler 2009, Parks et al. 1999 as well as Agger and Tortzen 2015).

3. Defining co-creation / continued When you co-create, you create something new together - hence the name. The parties' differences, ie the total amount of competencies, values ​​and networks, are mixed together in new ways to create new solutions to common challenges. Here citizens and professionals can in varying degree be equal partners in defining, developing, implementing and evaluating the welfare services. See fx Andersen & Espersen, 2017a; Andersen et al., 2018; Espersen & Andersen, 2017).

4. Co-creation can create different forms of value According to Jens Ulrich, associate professor at VIA University College, Denmark Co-creative collaboration can create value on three bottom lines: • The financial: money can be saved by enabling citizens in the solutions or by letting the citizens solve their own needs. • The innovative: a free dialogue between citizen and public institutions can lead to new creative and alternative solutions. • The democratic: concerns the very involvement of the citizen as a legitimate contributor to the project, so they more influence on the welfare services.

5. Added democratic values Empowermentof citizens and civil society, understood as the ability to exert influence on own life’s situation • can both deal with the individual level, ie. the individual citizen's experience of increased power over own situation; • and the collective level, ie. groups of citizens' opportunities for self-governance and thus their political power to influence the development of society

6. Added social values Transformative potential and social inclusion Co-creation on equal terms can also help social marginalised groups to feel more recognised and to be involved in transformative learning processes where they start to change from being clients to active citizens. • Co-creation opens for changing the roles and relationships of the actors. • When we focus on this transformative potential of co-creation, it is possible to mark a difference from other practices such as citizen involvement and volunteering.

7. Different reasons for interest in co-creation in practice, there can be different and combined reasons to be engaged in co-creation. • To address the fragmentation of welfare solutions and to create greater connections in efforts and services(financial reasons) • To develop public services in relation to greater quality, accuracy (effect) and citizen involvement(quality and innovation) • To strengthen the democratic influence of citizens and to support empowerment of vulnerable citizens (democratic aims) We cannot say that one practice is better than another, because they are developed in different contexts with different aims and possibilities. Instead, we can try to better understand the different forms of co-creation and their weaknesses and strengths, before we choose which form to use.

8. Need of a typology To understand the strengths and weaknesses of different forms of co-creation, we need a typology; • and in the following, we present a typology of co-creation that has been developed by Jens Ulrich, PhD. and associate professor at the University Colleges Denmark. It is not a normative typology. • Instead, it has a descriptive aim; it seeks to capture the main differences covered by the concept of co-creation (Ulrich, 2016).

9. Typology defined by two axis

10. Different forms of cooperation • The typology is defined by two axes: • The first vertical axis deals with the degree of predictability • – can we define and control the results of the co-creative process. • : • The second horizontal axis deals with the actors in the process. • - at one end the municipal actors play the central role in co-creation. • - at the other end, civil society actors are the key players. • With these two axis we get four main types of co-creation (seen from the perspective of the municipality): • A: Controlled • B: Responsible • C: Equal • D: Facilitating .

11. A: Controlled co-creation • Key initiative by the municipality • Predictable • The municipal employees occupy a controlling position. • Citizens are here regarded as recipients of public service. • Symbolically, citizens are often positioned as clients, patients or customers. The co-creative element is minimal – reduced to implementation of predefined public services The role of the citizens is limited to implementing public policy. (Fx in old peoples home a volunteer friend is engaged by the Home to walk with the elder resident 2 times a week)

12. B: Responsible co-creation • Key initiative by citizen groups • Predictable Based on the idea of ​​help to self-help. • The municipal employee works to help the citizen groups • so they in the long term can become autonomous and self-reliant. • Have a transformative change from clients to self-helped citizens A form of empowerment, where the citizen can manage in the future without the municipality‘s involvement (Fx older people get new technology and learn with help from the municipality to handle tasks at home without help like cleaning their home)

13. C: Equal co-creation • Key initiative by municipality • Unpredictable • The municipality no longer has an ambition to control the outcome • The outcome of the co-creation is not given in advance/ unpredictable The municipality identifies the topic/ problem, and invite citizen groups to develop solutions, where the citizens may handle it in the future alone or in cooperation with the municipality. Here citizens and civil society organizations can play a dual role. • have a role as developers of solutions and act as co-designers; • and have a role in the actual implementation of the co-created solution, and thereby have a role as co-implementers (Fx the municipality offers a housing association with many elder people to change the meal services to a self-organised meal activity, where the elder group get financial support to handle the meal as they find best)

14. D: Facilitating co-creation • Key initiative by citizen groups • Unpredictable • The municipality no longer has an ambition to control the outcome • The outcome of the co-creation is not given in advance/ unpredictable Here civil society organizations take the initiative. They see a problem and knock on the door of the municipality and ask for support to solve it. The municipal employees facilitate the process, offer frames such as premises and equipment or make their expertise available. Facilitating co-creation can ultimately end up being a total decoupling of the municipality as an actor. Civil society organizations here have a possible tripartite role • As co-initiator as well as co-designer and co-implementer (Fx some elder groups ask for help to establish a new housing association where rental housing is changed to a self-organised senior community / older collective)

15. Final recommendations Final recommendations could be: • The various forms of co-creation can all be appropriate depending on the contexts and challenges. • Before you engage in co-creation , clarify which co-creation approach you pursue, so you don’t disappoint the involved stakeholders. . • The typology can help to clarify your strategic, political and value considerations as to which co-creation approach will be the best in a given situation; • and it can also help to classify and describe different examples of good practice.

16. Thank you for your attention!

17. References • Agger, A., & Tortzen, A. (2018). Hvilkenværdiskaber vi med samskabelse oghvordankan den målesogdokumenteres? [Roskilde]: ProfessionshøjskolenAbsalon. • Andersen, L. L., Espersen, H. H., Kobro, L. U., Kristensen, K., Iversen, H., & Skar, C. (Eds.). (2018). Demokratiskinnovasjon. teorierog modeller for samskapendesosialinnovasjon. Oslo: Høgskolan i SørøstogKommunernesSammenslutning (KS). • Boje, T. (2017). Civilsamfund, medborgerskabogdeltagelse. København: Hans Reitzel. • Ibsen, B., & Espersen, H. H. (2016). Kommunernessamarbejde med civileaktører: Forskelleogligheder i forventninger, praksis, samarbejdspartnereogoplevetudbytte. København: Syd-danskUniversitet & KORA. Det NationaleInstitut for KommunersogRegioners Analyse ogForskning. • Loga, J. (2018). Sivilsamfunnets roller i velferdsstatensomstilling. NorskSosiologiskTidsskrift, 2(01), 58-73. • Löfffler, Elke (2009). Public governance in network society. In T. Bovaird & E. Löffler (Eds.), Public Management and Governance, Oxford: Routledge. • Parks, Roger B. et al. (1999): ”Consumers as co-producers of public services. Some institutional and economic considerations. Polycentric governance and development” i McGinnes (ed) - Reading from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis, Michigan University Press • Tuurnas, S. (2016). The Professional side of Co-Production. Ph.D-afhandling (ActaUniversitatisTamperensis 2163). Tampere: Tampere University. • Ulrich, Jens (2016). Samskabelse - en typology. CLOU Skriftsserie. • Verschuere, Bram, Taco Brandsenog Victor Pestoff (2012): ”Co-production: The State of the Art in Research and the Future Agenda” i Volubtas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23. årg., pp 1083–1101 • Voorberg, William, Victor Bekkersog Lars Tummers (2013): Co-creation and Co-production in Social Innovation; A Systematic Review and Future Research Agenda, EGPA Annual Conference, Edinburgh, 11-13. september