D3.2 Final scientific study of co-creation and citizens ...

D3.2 – Final scientific study of co-creation and citizens’ participation Version 1.0 – Final. Date: 30.09.2018

Project Title: CITADEL Contract No. GA 726755

www.citadel-h2020.eu

of 29

Empowering Citizens to Transform European Public Administrations

Deliverable D3.2

Final scientific study of co-creation and citizens’ participation

Editor(s): Judith Clifton, Daniel Díaz Fuentes and Gonzalo Llamosas García

Responsible Partner: Universidad de Cantabria

Status-Version: Version 1.0 - Final version

Date: 25/09/2018

Distribution level (CO, PU): PU




of 29

Project Number: GA 726755

Project Title: CITADEL

Title of Deliverable: Final scientific study of co-creation and citizens’ participation

Due Date of Delivery to the EC: 30/09/2018

Workpackage responsible for the Deliverable:

WP3 – Co-create to transform

Editor(s): Universidad de Cantabria

Contributor(s): TECNALIA, KUL, imec, Time-Lex and LU

Reviewer(s): Domenico Rotondi (FINCONS)

Approved by: All Partners

Recommended/mandatory readers:

WP2, WP3 and WP5

Abstract: This document will collect and analyse the final set of data on how citizens’ participation using and co-creating public services has been enhanced as the CITADEL project evolves.

Keyword List: Co-creation, public services, citizens, enablers, barriers, systematic review, public administrations, ICT technologies

Licensing information: This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-SA 3.0) http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

Disclaimer This document reflects only the author’s views and neither Agency nor the Commission are responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/




of 29

Document Description

Document Revision History

Version Date Modifications Introduced

Modification Reason Modified by

V0.1 08/05/2018 First draft version Universidad de Cantabria

V0.2 02/06/2018 Second draft version Universidad de Cantabria

V0.3 12/09/2018 Third draft version Universidad de Cantabria

V0.4 15/09/2018 Review version Universidad de Cantabria

V0.5 25/09/2018 Final version Universidad de Cantabria

V1.0 27/09/2018 Document ready for submission TECNALIA




of 29

Table of Contents

Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... 4

List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ 5

List of Tables .................................................................................................................................. 5

Terms and abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 6

Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... 7

1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 8

1.1 About this deliverable ................................................................................................... 8

1.2 Document structure ...................................................................................................... 9

2 Background.......................................................................................................................... 10

2.1 The concept of co-creation ......................................................................................... 10

2.2 ICT technologies in public sector ................................................................................. 10

2.3 ICT technologies in public services’ coproduction ...................................................... 11

3 Research method ................................................................................................................ 13

3.1 Systematic literature ................................................................................................... 13

3.2 Search strategy ............................................................................................................ 13

3.3 Eligibility criteria .......................................................................................................... 13

3.4 Selection of studies ..................................................................................................... 14

4 Results ................................................................................................................................. 15

4.1 Publication characteristics .......................................................................................... 15

4.2 Results of the systematic review ................................................................................. 16

4.2.1 Citizen domain ..................................................................................................... 16

4.2.2 Government domain ........................................................................................... 18

4.2.1 Cultural domain ................................................................................................... 20

5 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 22

6 References ........................................................................................................................... 24




of 29

List of Figures

FIGURE 1. FLOW DIAGRAM OF THE SEARCH STRATEGY ............................................................................ 14 FIGURE 2. DISTRIBUTION OF STUDIES BY PUBLICATION YEAR .................................................................... 15

List of Tables

TABLE 1. DISTRIBUTION OF STUDIES BY REGION AND COUNTRY ................................................................ 16 TABLE 2. POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF ICTS ON CO-CREATION AT CITIZEN LEVEL ............................... 18 TABLE 3. POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF ICTS ON CO-CREATION AT GOVERNMENT LEVEL ..................... 20 TABLE 4. POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF ICTS ON CO-CREATION AT GOVERNMENT LEVEL ..................... 20 TABLE 5. ROLE OF CITIZENS IN THE ADOPTION OF ICTS IN PUBLIC SECTOR'S CO-CREATION ............................ 21




of 29

Terms and abbreviations

EC European Commission

ICT Information and Communication Technologies

AI Artificial Intelligence

EPRs Electronic Patient Record system

PC Personal Computer

IoT Internet of Things




of 29

Executive Summary

Governments are promoting ICT technologies for enhancing public service’s co-creation. However, this adoption may have a dual effect. While the impact of ICT technologies on boosting citizen co-creation may be enabled, they also may raise important obstacles. The burgeoning body of literature examines how ICT technologies are enabling co-creation. However, much less is known about how ICT technologies may block or prevent it.

Building on the Meijer’s distinction of citizen, government and cultural domains, this study performs a systematic review to investigate the impact of ICT technologies in public services’ co-creation. Findings show the decisive role of ICT technologies to foster citizen to co-create, especially at an early stage. However, there are still important challenges to be faced: 1) difficulties in the use of ICT technologies by specific citizen groups such as the elderly and less skilled citizens. 2) the high cost associated to the ICT implementation. 3) organizational values that show a direct opposition to ICT technologies.




of 29

1 Introduction

Over the last decade, the literature on co-creation in political and public management research agendas has grown considerably [1] [2]. Governments around the world are promoting an increased use of information and communication technologies (ICTs, henceforth) to predict and understand the complexity of public services [3]. ICT supported co-creation features are expected to be a powerful approach, enabling greater public co-creation with actively engaged communities [4] [5]. ICTs such as social networks, web 2.0, mobile applications and cloud-systems are perceived as a means of empowering citizens by offering them the possibility of having a more active role in the delivery of public services [6]. ICTs are held to be a relevant instrument to improve the transparency and efficiency of government practices [7], as well as facilitating democratic practices using e-government solutions [8] [9]. Co-creation, which is becoming a priority of many governments in the world, is defined as a “voluntary or involuntary involvement of public service users in any of the design, management, delivery and/or evaluation of public services” [10]. The term co-production and co-creation are often seen as interchangeable [10] [11]. Scholars in public administration are witness of an intensifying range of ICTs employed in public sector’s co-creation, “as this becomes both more relevant and viable with advances in technology” [12]. Given the governments’ interest in promoting ICTs to stimulate co-creation in public services, it is important to understand how this technological use facilitates co-creation, as well as impedes it [13]. For instance, in Japan, citizens use their mobile phone to track litter in cities and enable local governments to design more effective solutions [3]. However, this ICT use may exclude some citizen groups to co-create such as the elderly and minorities, given their less technological skills and knowledge [9].

Most empirical and theoretical studies examine how a variety of factors facilitate co-creation [10] [5]. Nevertheless, little is known about how ICTs may block or prevent it [14] [5]. Meijer [15] shows that the barriers to e-governance differ in different domains: citizen, government and cultural domains. Building on this, this study uses this distinction to performs a systematic review that identifies the impact of ICT on public services’ co-creation, that leads to the following questions:

1. To what extent do ICTs help or block public services’ co-creation? 2. What do we know about the role of citizens in the design phase of public services’ co-

creation initiatives enabled by ICTs?

First findings show the decisive role of ICTs to encourage citizens to co-create. Nevertheless, there are still important challenges to be faced: 1) difficulties in the use of ICTs by specific citizen groups such as the elderly and less skilled citizens. 2) High cost of the deployment of ICTs in co-creation. 3) Organizational values which show a direct opposition to ICTs

Second, evidence reports a leading role of citizens at early stages of the co-creation initiatives which require more creativity and innovation. Findings show a high participation of citizens in the design or experimental phase of a co-creation initiative in comparison with other roles such as co-implementer and co-manager.

1.1 About this deliverable

Task 3.1 brings together in one package the state of the art about what is known theoretically and empirically about citizen participation in public service co-creation, particularly in this deliverable with the presence of ICTs. D3.2 responds to the question: Do ICT technologies help or block public services’ co-creation? To do so, this study uses a systematic review approach to evaluate the literature on the topic according to PRISMA guideline. The systematic review analysis addresses specifically scientific papers published on the topics of co-creation and co-




of 29

production in public services. The information provided is essential to develop the CITADEL co-creation methodology and help design and implement the CITADEL co-creation tool to be developed in WP4 and validated by the criteria and case studies defined in WP5.

1.2 Document structure

This document is structured as follows: Section 2 provides the background to the concept of co-creation as well as the emergence of ICTs in public sector and co-creation. The methodology used for the systematic review is presented in Section 3 and is followed by an overview of the search results in Section 4. This section also presents the findings of the identified studies according to the research questions, followed by the conclusion in Section 5.




of 29

2 Background

2.1 The concept of co-creation

The concept of co-creation was initially developed during the 1970s. The literature on co-creation has emerged as a mixed result of theoretical and empirical analysis of urban service delivery [16]. However, scholars tried to delimit this concept via a variety of definitions at that time [17] [18] [19] [20]; all these definitions agree on the recognition of citizens as important participants of co-creation. Although these definitions are not identical, they share the central idea that public services are the joint product of activities performed by both citizens and government officials [21]. At the same time, empirical attention was given in those years to the examination of co-creation initiatives of urban services. While examples of citizen involvement are relevant to several types of urban services [16], one area for which citizen involvement has been extensively documented for that period is the public safety and security. For example, several empirical studies provide evidence that citizens in American cities have been involved in anticrime efforts such as Neighborhood Watch to increase community safety [22] [23] [24].

During the 1980s and 1990s, the spread of new ideas based on the marketization of public services raised the debate whether public administrators should treat citizens as customers in the provision of public services [25]. The idea of involving citizens through co-creation attracted sporadic attention during this period [24] [26] [27] [28] [29], with a little focus on theoretical developments [30]. The adoption of a market logic, with an increasing emphasis on results, attracted criticism from public administration scholars [31] [32]. For example, some critics argued that government must serve all citizens equally, not just customers. Further, the marketization could make citizens to have a passive role in the production of public services [33] [29].

More recently, the increasing role of networking society [34] and New Public Governance [35] implied a more plural model of governance, where citizens had even a more active role in the provision of public services [36]. This second wave of interest in co-creation was focused on the recognition that the provision of public services is likely to depend on the contributions of multiple stakeholders: citizens, public officials and other members of the community such as volunteers [37] [38]. This broader conceptualization identified different relationships between these groups of stakeholders and public sector [36]. For example, whilst citizens both provide resources and consume the services provided, the volunteers did not participate of that consumption [39]. Furthermore, the increasing budgetary constraints put by governments in the aftermath of the financial crisis led to a growing interest in co-creation both in theoretical [40] [36] [41] [42] and in empirical research [43] [44] [45] as a means of reducing both the cost of services [40] and the democratic deficit [10].

2.2 ICT technologies in public sector

ICT can be defined as “computing and telecommunication technologies that provide automatic means of handling information” [46]. The spread of ICTs throughout public services has been promoted by the technological development. Until the computer technology arrival, the telegraph and telephone were the telecommunication features most used by citizens [47]. However, the development of large mainframe computers in the 1960s, which were large centralized systems, opened up new opportunities for governments to use them for scientific purposes and massive administrative tasks [48]. Mainframe computers were the dominant ICT in governments until 1990. Although the emergence of personal computers (PC) in late 1980s decreased the price of computers, the adoption of this technology in governments was marginal [49]. Instead, transaction processing systems and rudimentary management information processes were the common [50].




of 29

In the 1990s. the boom of the internet and web services changed the traditional way of bureaucratic government towards a new private sector’s perspective [51]. The spread of ICT and the diffusion of e-business technologies created an interest for the use of ICTs in public sector, referring to it as electronic government or e-Government [46] [52]. During the first years, barriers associated to e-Government were quite common. Some were related to the lack of skills and knowledge, high costs to initiate, absence of political support and lack of clear evidence about the positive impact of ICT on society [46]. For example, research into the effect of ICTs in public administration shows almost no effect and changes [53].

In early 2000s there was a change in the perception of ICTs in public sector towards promoting democratic participation [54]. The 2001 e-Government act [55], the terrorist attacks of 11th September [56] and the introduction of the t-Government program [57] reflected a new trend based on engaging citizens, who play a fundamental role in the transformation of e-services [58]. This latter was facilitated both by the development of web-based technologies such as blogs, wikis and social networking [50] and the spread of mobile and wireless technology among the population [59]. Simultaneously, big data analysis and interactive social media [60] as well as new technologies such as artificial intelligence and cloud systems [61] are revolutionizing even more the ways in which citizens participate in the decision-making process. In essential, the ICT adoption is changing the existing centralized paradigm of decision making to another more decentralized in which the citizens are a fundamental part of the strategy.

2.3 ICT technologies in public services’ coproduction

ICT play an important role in the co-creation of public services by facilitating interaction between public officials and citizens [15] [62]. According to the level of ICT progress, three main phases can be distinguished: 1) 1970s – 1990, 2) 1990s – 2008, 3) the post financial crisis period.

In the first, the main ICTs used in co-creation until the Internet era were the telephone and television. On the one hand, citizens used the telephone to make request for services and to provide information to public officials [18]. This technology was also used by citizens in their involvement in safety services. For example, to notify crimes to police and provide information on criminal issues and suspects [22]. On the other hand, the police used local television stations to report crimes and robberies in the city and call for collaborations to citizens [63].

In the second, the spread of the Internet [64] and the development of the World Wide Web [65] marked another phase in the relationship between governments and citizens. During this period, the Internet matured as a cost-effective and user-friendly platform [66]. In the 2000s the proliferation of e-Government initiatives gained even more importance with the Web 2.0 advent [67]. One of the core features of Web 2.0 is that content is no longer provided by the public service provider but rather being generated in networks and communities. This technology allowed to citizens to enjoy an active role in the provision of public services [68] by encouraging them to innovate [69] [70]. For example, [13] reported several examples of co-creation in public service support and safety using web 2.0 in the early 2000s.

In the third, the increasing interest in co-creation and the rise of social networks led to governments to take advantage of ICTs for co-creating public initiatives. For example, 28 out of 34 OCDE countries have a Twitter account for the government communication department and 21 have a Facebook account to engage citizens to co-create [71]. Evidence is shown that co-creating security is being facilitated by using ICTs. For example, citizens are asking to help the police by monitoring safety cameras in their houses [13]. Other technologies such as cloud systems and artificial intelligence (AI) are opening new opportunities for governments to foster public services. For example, the Australian government helps the disabled understand and access government services using an AI-based assistant avatar [72]. The combination of the




of 29

internet of things (IoT), where the objects of everyday life would communicate with each other and with the users using internet [73], the quick expansion of IoT devices [74] and AI is fostering the creation of smart cities [75] with all modern facilities to provide citizens a more efficient provision of public services [76]. Looking ahead, some new technologies such as blockchain have the potential to be particularly far-reaching in co-creation.

In 2018, the market for Innovative, ICT-based solutions available to public authorities that help to recalibrate communication with citizens, to empower them, has become diverse and thriving. Citizenlab (https://www.citizenlab.co/) is one of many, a successful example marketed as “A ready-to-use citizen participation platform for local governments. Reach more citizens, manage your participation projects, and make better decisions”. The platform is being used by 65 PAs worldwide to include citizens and foster citizens participation in different phases of interacting with citizens: Inform, Consult, Involve and Collaborate.

Among the longer-lasting ICT-based solutions that were provided by authorities to increase the ‘social intelligence’ and to harvest the input of citizens is FixMyStreet, an issue reporting service, first developed in the UK (https://fixmystreet.org) and locally implemented in many cities around the world (Brussels/Belgium is one of them). It allows citizens to report issues with city furniture or in the public space. In doing so, it provides an easily accessible platform for citizens to become more vocal by using the service to reach out to local government and attempting to effect change.

Fixmystreet in Brussels is an interesting example that also demonstrates other, related aspects in the context of e-government. First, while the provision of such a service is a big step towards more empowered citizens, it can only become a success if people use it. Being highly transparent, Fixmystreet also clearly shows when the authorities are not reacting to a citizen request and the service can only become a success story if the city manages to act on the input. Therefore, the city itself needs to be able to accommodate the innovation. In Brussels, at the onset of the service, only four types of issues could be reported through the app, whereas much more is possible in other similar sized cities, e.g. in the UK and US. This was the case due to the complex organization and the distribution of responsible city and regional administrations in Brussels. It took several years for the city to re-organize itself in order to be able to make the service more comprehensive.

https://www.citizenlab.co/

https://fixmystreet.org/




of 29

3 Research method

3.1 Systematic literature

This study uses a systematic and reproducible method of reviewing the literature on co-creation to ensure a more transparent and replicable body of knowledge [77]. This study follows the ‘Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis’ (PRISMA), that aims to help authors improve the quality of a literature review process [78]. In contrast to other types of literature reviews (e.g. narrative reviews), systematic reviews follow a guideline framework focused on responding to specific research questions guided by inclusion/exclusion criteria [79]. First, we identify a few questions based on a preliminary review of the literature. Second, we extract data from studies that deal with the topic, using a search strategy. Third, we evaluate the quality of those studies according to the eligibility criteria and recommendations. Finally, we include those studies whose evidence is related to the initial research question.

3.2 Search strategy

In order to avoid duplication of efforts, a search strategy may be needed. This strategy consists of digging into Scopus and Web of Science and covering social science disciplines to identify a reference list of published articles. The broad search settings in the database include keywords that may have a research interest given our previous literature background on coproduction and ICTs. This search strategy was constructed as follows: Title, abstract and keywords1 = (“co-creation” OR “co-production”) AND Title, abstract and keywords = (“artificial intelligence” OR “internet of things” OR “cloud system” OR “ICT” OR “ICT related innovation” OR “digital public service” OR “information and communication technologies” OR “smart cities” OR “digitally-based solutions” OR “social network” OR “open government” OR “online public service” OR “technological innovation” OR “e-government” OR “m-government”). Type of document = scientific articles. Discipline = Social sciences. Language: English. This research yielded 150 articles in Scopus and 253 articles in Web of Science. The last search was run on 11 August 2018. Full text versions of articles were examined by the first author according to the eligibility criteria. A third author interactively checked the sample of the assessed articles to ensure that the eligibility criteria was applied correctly.

3.3 Eligibility criteria

Eligibility criteria is key to assess the validity, applicability and comprehensiveness of a study analysis. This eligibility criteria are formed by the inclusion and exclusion of elements that allows to select relevant studies for the systematic review. On this basis, this is the set of criteria that has led to the inclusion of 52 studies:

Inclusion criteria

• Published articles focused on co-creating public services through ICT technologies. For instance, studies focus on how social media and e-government platforms are used for fostering collective action in different sectors. These studies should be written in English.

• Only empirical studies are eligible.

Exclusion criteria

1 Since the “title, abstract and keyword” search strategy is not available in Web of Science, we use “topic”

instead.




of 29

• Studies which are not focused on public services’ co-creation.

• Studies which are not focused on ICT-based innovations.

3.4 Selection of studies

Once assessed all the eligible studies according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, the selection process is presented in Figure 1 according to the PRISMA statement [80]. This flow diagram maps out the number of records identified, included and excluded, as well as the reasons for exclusion.

Figure 1. Flow diagram of the search strategy




of 29

4 Results

4.1 Publication characteristics

The search strategy generated 395 results, of which 368 were eligible records after removing 29 duplicates. Of these records, 154 were excluded on document type and language. After examining the full texts and excluding articles according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 52 qualifying articles remained. These studies were published within a period of 15 years (between 2003 and 2018), with more than half of the records published in last 3 years (Figure 2) This search reveals that 12 articles were focused on health sector, 12 on environment, 9 education, 7 on transport and the remaining articles on other sectors such as telecommunication, administrative services, finance and so on. In health sector, papers show that ICTs can provide many functionalities for health professionals and patients, addressing different needs with distinct features. For example, some initiatives in the health sector have developed technological applications to improve the stay of patients at the hospital [81].

Figure 2. Distribution of studies by publication year

Table 1 presents the geographical focus of the included studies using regional grouping. According to the distribution of technological co-creation initiatives by countries, we find that United States, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Spain were the countries that concentrated more coproduction cases with high presence of ICTs, with 9, 8, 6, and 4, respectively. For instance, based on a study conducted by United Nations on UN-E-Government Survey [82], United Kingdom is ranked as a global leader on the e-participation index, followed by countries such as Japan, Australia, Republic of Korea and the Netherlands.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018

No.

Stu

die

s




of 29

Table 1. Distribution of studies by region and country

Region and country No. Studies Region and countries No. Studies

Europe 40 North America 12

United Kingdom 8 United States 9

Netherlands 6 Canada 3

Spain 4 Asia and Oceania 5

Belgium 3 Indonesia 2

Denmark 3 Australia 1

Finland 3 Japan 1

Italy 3 Taiwan 1

Germany 2 Africa 1

Lithuania 2 Zambia 1

Sweden 2 Latin America 4

Greece 1 Argentina 1

Ireland 1 Brazil 1

Norway 1 Mexico 1

Switzerland 1 Uruguay 1

Most included studies addressing the adoption of ICTs in public services’ co-creation are characterized by a great degree of heterogeneity in terms of the methodological approaches. In total, there are 20 studies based on interviews as the most often employed research method. Most studies included in the systematic review are based on qualitative data. Other research methods often used in these studies are the following: narrative descriptions (10), focus groups (7), web content analysis (7), experiments (5) and systematic reviews (2).

4.2 Results of the systematic review

Building on the Meijer’s [15] distinction of citizen, government and cultural domains, this section covers the findings of all the eligible studies included in the systematic review. For each domain, the findings of the relevant studies are presented, followed by a discussion of their implications for the review’s research questions which incorporates valuable insights into the impact of ICTs in public services’ co-creation.

4.2.1 Citizen domain

The identified studies provide evidence on the citizen factors influencing co-creation. Some included factors have gained academic attention in recent years [83] [84] [85] such as age, educational attainment, gender and attitudes such as trust in government, satisfaction with the service and willingness to participate.




of 29

• Age

The relationship between age and the potential of ICTs in co-creation is widely covered by the set of included studies in this systematic review. In terms of the impact of ICTs, there is a strong support for the factor ‘age’ in the development of coproduction initiatives in public services. Twelve out of sixteen studies that included the influence of age in co-creation, found a negative effect. In general, these studies report that older citizens are more likely to find difficulties to participate in co-creation initiatives with high presence of ICTs. In the literature on co-creation, the digital divide is identified as the main obstacle for [86]. Several articles [87] [88] [89] [90] reported less interest and interdependence in the use of ICTs by part of older citizens. This lack of interest to be engaged is caused by the fear about learning and using ICTs such as social media and the internet. On the other hand, four of the studies that included the influence of age in co-creation reported a positive effect. These studies showed that ICTs may encourage older citizen groups to be proactive and engage in the active co-creation process [86][89][91] [2].

• Limited education

Ten of the identified studies reported a negative effect in the influence of the technological background of citizens to co-create public services. These studies show that some citizens, such as the elderly and minorities groups, are not competent in the use of ICTs [87][92][93][94] because they may suffer problems of understanding with the terms of conditions in specific applications [95] and difficulties to produce user-generated content to broadcast content [87]. Less skilled and more vulnerable citizens show a limited engagement in co-creation, given their fear of being humiliated by not knowing how to use a computer [86][89][90]. In response to it, governments, especially at local level [9], decided to come up with different tools to overcome citizen educational limitations. For example, Smart Cities’ initiatives such as OrganiCity, that collect data from user devices in the nearby area to upload information and statistics [96], provide facilities which enable citizens to improve their skills in interacting with the seamless technology surrounding them. On the other hand, six studies reported a positive effect of educational attainment in the development of ICTs in co-creation. The use of ICTs can also facilitate social inclusion. For example, some training initiatives based on Web 2.0 tools [97] [91] such as Wikis and collaborative platforms encourage students and older citizen groups to be more proactive and engage actively in co-creation processes. In the health sector, there are also training actions focused on enabling patients to decrease their insecurity about experienced symptoms, their recovery and health behavior. The main aim is to help patients better understand their medical condition [98].

• Gender

Eight studies assessed the impact of ICTs on gender. First, six articles were concerned about the negative impact of co-creation on gender discrimination. [99] show that female public sector employees participated lower than their male colleagues in social media communities. [100] also find gender inequalities when citizens participate in technological activities. Secondly, two articles report the positive impact of ICT in gender. The advantages of Web 2.0 lead to reduce the existing gap between males and females in co-creation [88] [91].

• Trust in government

The effect of ICTs in public sector’s co-creation can be measured by the number of people that uses information systems. 4 studies reported negative effects on trust related to the citizen involvement in co-creation activities. For example, [13] show problems of trust for immigrants and young people in the police. On the other hand, just two articles focused on trust, showed




of 29

that ICTs promote greater transparency, increased participation and self-accountability of citizens, leading to the creation of trust in governments [101].

• Satisfaction

Studies just report positive effects in the impact of ICTs on citizen satisfaction. In these smart cities’ initiatives, the presence of ICTs is associated with higher level of satisfaction and participation [75]. Also, ICTs can make citizens more confident with other participants to provide personal information and data. For example, online platform in health learning is considered beneficial to make patients to be interested in providing solutions to their problems [102].

• Unwillingness to participate

Table 2. Positive and negative effects of ICTs on co-creation at citizen level

Issues associated to problems of understanding with the technology to use may lead some citizens to be unwilling to participate and therefore to be excluded. In this regard, ten identified studies reported “unwillingness to participate” for some of the following reasons: afraid of technology [90] and do not feel comfortable making use of digital tools [12].

4.2.2 Government domain

The identified studies also provide evidence on the government factors influencing co-creation such as financial capacity, communication, technical capacity and bureaucratic issues

• Financial capacity

Seven articles show difficulties associated to financial barriers. First, the systematic review identifies problems associated to the significant amount of resources to initiate. For example, Trivellato (2017) describes a smart city’s project in Milan that shows higher risk of dispersion of resources at the initial phase. Second, a significant amount of resources is needed to maintain and harness ICTs [104]. On the other hand, six articles show financial advantages for government




of 29

of using ICTs in co-creation. These studies reported that, after installation, ICTs reduce costs, human errors and speed up the operations [90][103] leading to improve efficiency [57] [92] and reduce maintenance costs [6].

• Communication

Seven studies show problems when communication is digital. In the health sector, there is a perception that the increasing trend of online health information is a threat to the medical control and authority. Articles report that this perception is due to the top-down dominant approach that impedes successful co-creation between patients and physicians [102]. Some physicians show negative attitudes to co-create with patients due to the expected cost in time and money [98]. Other arguments consider that when ICTs is present in co-creation, communication problems emerge because the separation between government and other actors [105]. For example, one of the main limitation of a European Commission project to undertake its innovative activities is related to the lack of communication between the experts, the non-expert stakeholders and the policy regulators [106]. On the other hand, ten studies assess the positive effect of communication channels in co-creation. The channels of communication are now diverse, and several governments are developing crowdsourcing solutions to increase economic development, effectiveness and efficiency of public service delivery. According to the literature, the use of ICTs is directly linked to the communication improvement between citizens and public officials [2] [95].

• Technical capacity

Six studies identify technical problems associated to ICTs in public sectors’ co-creation. This may come with obstacles due to the lack of technological knowledge that can slow down the implementation process. These studies show difficulties in this process, especially in the design [14] and testing phase, in which some project were postponed by almost a year due to technical problems [15]. On the other hand, ICTs are viewed as crucial to prevent technical problems and improve the results of co-creation processes. 27 studies reported enablers at technical level, which means that governments are fixing solutions for various problems by adopting ICTs. Governments also provide software and hardware in public sector. In most cases, governments use free and open source software to interact with citizens. However, in a few cases this software is specifically designed to support a particular decision-making process. For example, the design of an electronic patient record system (EPRs) to enhance the clinical decision making within health care [107]. On the other hand, the adoption of ICTs has also financial advantages for governments. 5 studies reported that, after installation, ICTs reduce costs, human errors and speed up the operations [90] [103] leading to improve efficiency [57] [92] and reduce maintenance costs [6].

• Bureaucratic issues

The identified studies also provide evidence around the importance of bureaucratic factors in the development of ICTs in co-creation. 4 studies identifies institutional forces that make the aim of engaging citizens increasingly difficult [108] [106]. For example, difficulties may exist with the fixed set of rules and regulations of the political system.




of 29

Table 3. Positive and negative effects of ICTs on co-creation at government level

4.2.1 Cultural domain

There are structural and cultural factors such as organizational or social values that may work against the development of electronic services.

1. Organizational values

Five studies included in the review show evidence on conflict effects. This means that some service professionals associated to health sector and police perceive ICTs as controlling, intrusive and inflexible. In some cases, the adoption of ICTs is viewed as a threat to the traditional way of working [107][102] [98]. For example, findings show police officers feel that the system threaten their position of empowering citizens and thereby interfere with a good police work [15].

2. Social values

Although not substantial, the identified set of studies relating to the link between social values and the effect of ICTs on co-creation are highly supportive. These studies identified that those knowledge practices that are culturally and politically embedded can inhibit innovation by not allowing new ideas and creative solutions [109]. For example, differences in language can hamper participant interaction [110]

Table 4. Positive and negative effects of ICTs on co-creation at government level

Additionally, studies show the involvement of users in the design or experimental phase of a coproduction initiative with ICT presence. 18 studies include a citizen role of co-designer, 11 a role of co-implementer, 1 a role of manager and 17 remained without answer to this issue. The




of 29

feedback of users was crucial in the testing of ICT applications, which enables users to connect and interact with relatives while being treated at the hospital [81]. Furthermore, the systematic review show that ICTs promote new dynamic of learning in which the students are coproducing by sharing knowledge with their teachers and classmates using Web 2.0 [97]

Table 5. Role of citizens in the adoption of ICTs in public sector's co-creation

Citizen role Frequency % Total

Co-designer 18 38,30

Co-implementer 11 23,40 Co-manager 1 2,13

NA 17 36,17




of 29

5 Conclusions

Through a systematic review of empirical cases, this article identifies enablers and barriers related to the adoption of ICTs in public services’ co-creation. Our review of 52 published articles synthesizes the influential factors of co-creation that have gained academic attention in recent years. Following Meijer’s distinction on citizen, government and cultural factors, this study provides comprehensive knowledge on whether ICTs can enhance public services’ co-creation. Despite the challenges of the adoption of ICTs, significant benefits can also be extracted from the literature. First, this analysis provides evidence of the potential of ICTs in fostering social inclusion among older people and less skilled users. Literature describes processes to reduce the digital divide, or technological gap, that mainly affects the older citizens and minorities. To do so, governments are using free and open source software to avoid exclusion by allowing all citizens to participate. Empirical evidence shows how the impact of these initiatives among citizens, increases their level of involvement and satisfaction [75]. The adoption of ICT provides a voice for communities to be heard by governments and other partners. This creates spaces where different groups can now create a common identity, by reinforcing a bottom-up approach in contrast to a top-down approach. Second, the systematic review shows that ICTs are an effective way for improving efficiency and efficacy in public services. Evidence shows that the adoption of ICT is directly associated with cost reduction and efficiency savings [111]. Third, even though open data policy is a challenge for government, it is also an opportunity to get free and online information about the activities performed by public initiatives. The adoption of ICTs has provided capabilities for attracting and engaging citizens in research experiments in public services. This allows to share information among different partners and obtaining new improvements from that collaboration. Fourth, the role of users in ICT-facilitated co-creation initiatives have changed significantly according to the literature. Most studies included in the systematic review reported that the citizen feedback in the initial phase of an ICT project is becoming more and more frequent. In this context, we are witness of a change in roles in the provision of public services. As [12] points out, citizens should be now be seen as partner rather than just a customer.

However, in the transition from a traditional public sector to a digital public sector, this study contributes to the understanding of important barriers that should be addressed. First, articles report that specific citizen groups experience problems to engage with ICTs. Especially, findings identify the elderly and minorities as social groups at risk of exclusion. In order to avoid this digital divide, studies examined suggest different tools. For example, governments may facilitate the design of software interfaces to help the elderly and less skilled citizens in the learning process [90] by offering them technological support [112]. Second, the systematic review reports barriers at government level. While efforts have been made by governments to facilitate the adoption of these technologies, there are still multiple obstacles to face. We identify 4 main barriers: 1) Problems of communication between citizens and public officials. 2) Significant amount of financial resources required to initiate. 3) Technical obstacles such as lack of technological knowledge. 4) Absence of a legal framework to adopt ICTs. The existence of a top-down dominant approach is one of the reasons why coproduction tends to fail according to the literature. Some examples of traditional government structures are identified in the health sector. In the review, we find two papers referring to the negative physicians’ attitudes to co-create with citizens. Third, this deliverable identifies cultural challenges which work against the development of co-creation initiatives. These knowledge practices identify ICTs as a threat for their professional autonomy. Several examples of this are found in health services.

In conclusion, the results of this systematic review do not only report the challenges associated to the ICT adoption in co-creation but they also promote solutions to problems. Too often the technology is seen as a solution, although without enough political and citizen support it would




of 29

be insufficient. Undoubtedly, this research shows that the benefits of ICT technologies are contributing greatly to facilitate the engagement of different partners in co-creation initiatives. However, a better understanding of the barriers related to this technology should be considered by policy-makers when deciding about new policy initiatives to public services’ co-creation.




of 29

6 References

[1] R. Kleinhans, “False promises of co-production in neighbourhood regeneration: the case of Dutch community enterprises,” Public Management Review, vol. 19, no. 10, pp. 1500–1518, 2017.

[2] F. De Filippi, C. Coscia, and G. G. Cocina, “Collaborative platforms for social innovation projects.The Miramap case inTurin,” TECHNE, vol. 14, pp. 219–226, 2017.

[3] OECD, “Embracing Innovation in Government: Global Trends,” 2017. [4] B. Granier and H. Kudo, “How are citizens involved in smart cities? Analysing citizen

participation in Japanese ̀ `Smart Communities’’,” Information Polity, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 61–76, Jan. 2016.

[5] E. Uppström and C.-M. Lönn, “Explaining value co-creation and co-destruction in e-government using boundary object theory,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 406–420, 2017.

[6] K. Szkuta, R. Pizzicannella, and D. Osimo, “Collaborative approaches to public sector innovation: A scoping study,” Telecommunications Policy, vol. 38, no. 5–6, pp. 558–567, 2014.

[7] N. Marres, Material Participation: Technology, The Environment and Everyday Publics. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012.

[8] A. Kavanaugh, S. Krishnan, M. Pérez-Quiñones, J. Tedesco, K. Madondo, and A. Ahuja, “Encouraging civic participation through local news aggregation,” Information Polity, vol. 19, no. 1–2, pp. 35–56, 2014.

[9] S. van der Graaf and C. Veeckman, “Designing for participatory governance: Assessing capabilities and toolkits in public service delivery,” Info, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 74–88, 2014.

[10] S. P. Osborne, Z. Radnor, and K. Strokosch, “Co-Production and the Co-Creation of Value in Public Services: A suitable case for treatment?,” Public Management Review, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 639–653, 2016.

[11] W. H. Voorberg, V. J. J. M. Bekkers, and L. G. Tummers, “A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the social innovation journey,” Public Management Review, vol. 17, no. 9, pp. 1333–1357, 2015.

[12] D. Linders, “From e-government to we-government: Defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 446–454, 2012.

[13] A. Meijer, “Co-production in an Information Age: Individual and Community Engagement Supported by New Media,” Voluntas, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1156–1172, 2012.

[14] I. Mergel, “Open innovation in the public sector: drivers and barriers for the adoption of Challenge.gov,” Public Management Review, vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 726–745, 2018.

[15] A. Meijer, “E-governance innovation: Barriers and strategies,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 198–206, 2015.

[16] S. L. Percy, “Citizen participation in the coproduction of urban services,” Urban Affairs Review, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 431–446, 1984.

[17] E. Ostrom, R. B. Parks, G. P. Whitaker, and S. L. Percy, “The Public Service Production Process: A Framework for Analyzing Police Services,” Policy Studies Journal, vol. 7, pp. 381–381, 1978.

[18] G. P. Whitaker, “Coproduction: Citizen Participation in Service Delivery,” Coproduction: Citizen Participation in Service Delivery, 1980.

[19] R. B. Parks et al., “CONSUMERS AS COPRODUCERS OF PUBLIC SERVICES: SOME ECONOMIC AND INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS,” Policy Studies Journal, vol. 9, no. 7, pp. 1001–1011, 1981.




of 29

[20] R. C. Rich, “Interaction of voluntary and governmental sectors: towards an understanding of co-production of municipal service,” Administration and Society, vol. 13, pp. 59–76, 1981.

[21] E. B. Sharp, “Toward a New Understanding of Urban Services and Citizen Participation: The Coproduction Concept,” The American Review of Public Administration, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 105–118, 1980.

[22] S. L. Percy, “Conceptualizing and Measuring Citizen Co‐Production of Community Safety,” Policy Studies Journal, vol. 7, pp. 486–493, 1978.

[23] R. C. Rich, “THE ROLES OF NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS IN URBAN SERVICE DELIVERY,” Journal of Urban Affairs, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 81–93, 1979.

[24] M. S. Rosentraub and K. S. Harlow, “The Coproduction of Police Services: A Case of Citizens’ Inputs in the Production of Personal Safety,” presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Society for Public Administration, San Francisco, 1980.

[25] J. C. Thomas, “Bringing the Public into Public Administration: The Struggle Continues,” Public Administration Review, vol. 59, no. 1, pp. 83–88, 1999.

[26] J. Brudney, “Fostering Volunteer Programs in the Public Sector: Planning, Initiating, and Managing Voluntary Activities,” Jossey-Bass, p. 282, 1990.

[27] P. Hupe, “The politics of implementation: Individual, organisatonal and political co-production in social services delivery,” in New agendas in the study of the policy process, London: Harvester Wheatsheaf, 1993.

[28] M. Moore, Creating public value: Strategic management in government. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1995.

[29] E. Ostrom, “Crossing the great divide: Coproduction, synergy, and development,” World Development, vol. 24, no. 6, pp. 1073–1087, 1996.

[30] J. Alford, “A public management road less travelled: Clients as co-producers of public services,” Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 57, no. 4, pp. 128–137, 1998.

[31] M. Considine, “THE CORPORATE MANAGEMENT FRAMEWORK AS ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCE: A CRITIQUE,” Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 4–18, 1988.

[32] C. Pollitt, Managerialism and the Public Services: The Anglo-American Experience. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1990.

[33] H. L. Schachter, Reinventing Government or Reinventing Ourselves: The Role of Citizen Owners in Making a Better Government. State University of New York Press, 1997.

[34] J. Hartley, “Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present,” Public Money and Management, vol. 25, no. 1, pp. 27–34, 2005.

[35] S. Osborne, “The New Public Governance?,” Public Management Review, vol. 8, pp. 377–387, 2006.

[36] V. Pestoff, “What is Co-Production? Conceptual and Theoretical Perspectives,” in New Public Governance, the Third Sector and Co-Production, Routledge, 2012.

[37] T. Bovaird, “Beyond engagement and participation: User and community coproduction of public services,” Public Administration Review, vol. 67, no. 5, pp. 846–860, 2007.

[38] T. Bovaird, G. Stoker, T. Jones, E. Loeffler, and R. Pinilla, “Activating collective co-production of public services: influencing citizens to participate in complex governance mechanisms in the UK,” International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 47–68, 2016.

[39] J. Alford, Engaging public sector clients: From service-delivery to co-production. 2009. [40] T. Bovaird and E. Loeffler, “From Engagement to Co-production: The Contribution of Users

and Communities to Outcomes and Public Value,” Voluntas, vol. 23, no. 4, pp. 1119–1138, 2012.




of 29

[41] S. P. Osborne, Z. Radnor, and G. Nasi, “A New Theory for Public Service Management? Toward a (Public) Service-Dominant Approach,” American Review of Public Administration, vol. 43, no. 2, pp. 135–158, 2013.

[42] M. Farr, “Co-Production and Value Co-Creation in Outcome-Based Contracting in Public Services,” Public Management Review, vol. 18, no. 5, pp. 654–672, 2016.

[43] S. Parrado, R. van, T. Bovaird, and E. Löffler, “Correlates of Co-production: Evidence From a Five-Nation Survey of Citizens,” International Public Management Journal, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 85–112, 2013.

[44] A. Wiewiora, R. Keast, and K. Brown, “Opportunities and Challenges in Engaging Citizens in the Co-Production of Infrastructure-Based Public Services in Australia,” Public Management Review, vol. 18, no. 4, pp. 483–507, 2016.

[45] J. Alford and S. Yates, “Co-Production of Public Services in Australia: The Roles of Government Organisations and Co-Producers,” Australian Journal of Public Administration, vol. 75, no. 2, pp. 159–175, 2016.

[46] R. Heeks, Reinventing government in the information age: International Practice in IT-enabled Public Sector Reform. Routledge, 1999.

[47] L. Willmore, “Government policies toward information and communication technologies: A historical perspective,” Journal of Information Science, vol. 28, no. 2, pp. 89–96, 2002.

[48] D. F. Andersen, S. Belardo, and S. S. Dawes, “Strategic Information Management: Conceptual Frameworks for the Public Sector,” Public Productivity & Management Review, vol. 17, no. 4, pp. 335–353, 1994.

[49] H. Margetts, Information Technology in Government: Britain and America. Routledge, 1999.

[50] S. S. Dawes, “The evolution and continuing challenges of E-governance,” Public Administration Review, vol. 68, no. SUPPL. 1, pp. S86–S102, 2008.

[51] A. Subbiah and O. Ibrahim, “E-government towards service co-creation of value,” African Journal of Business Management, vol. 5, no. 22, pp. 9401–9411, 2011.

[52] E. Bonsón, L. Torres, S. Royo, and F. Flores, “Local e-government 2.0: Social media and corporate transparency in municipalities,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 2, pp. 123–132, 2012.

[53] V. Bekkers, “Reinventing government in the information age. International practice in IT-enabled public sector reform,” Public Management Review, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 133–139, 2003.

[54] M. Yildiz, “E-government research: Reviewing the literature, limitations, and ways forward,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 646–665, 2007.

[55] S. H. Schelin, “E-Government: An overview.,” in Public information technology: Policy and management issues, Idea Group Publishing, 2003, pp. 120–137.

[56] L. E. Halchin, “Electronic government: Government capability and terrorist resource,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 406–419, 2004.

[57] S. King and S. Cotterill, “Transformational Government? The role of information technology in delivering citizen-centric local public services,” Local Government Studies, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 333–354, 2007.

[58] J. Feller, P. Finnegan, and O. Nilsson, “Open innovation and public administration: Transformational typologies and business model impacts,” European Journal of Information Systems, vol. 20, no. 3, pp. 358–374, 2011.

[59] H. J. Scholl, S. M. Liu, R. Fidel, and K. Unsworth, “Choices and challenges in e-government field force automation projects: insights from case studies,” in Paper presented at the 1st International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance (ICEGOV 2007), Macao., 2007.




of 29

[60] S. M. Liu and Q. Yuan, “The Evolution of Information and Communication Technology in Public Administration,” Public Administration and Development, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 140–151, 2015.

[61] G. N. Kouziokas, “The application of artificial intelligence in public administration for forecasting high crime risk transportation areas in urban environment,” Transportation Research Procedia, vol. 24, pp. 467–473, Jan. 2017.

[62] V. Pestoff, “Collective Action and the Sustainability of Co-Production,” Public Management Review, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 383–401, 2014.

[63] D. A. Graber, “The Media and the Police,” Policy Studies Journal, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 493–500, 1978.

[64] D. F. Andersen and S. S. Dawes, Government information management: A primer and casebook. New York, NY: Prentice Hall, 1991.

[65] R. Peek, “The spiders in the web: A satirical look at the development of the world wide web,” Information Society, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 333–337, 1995.

[66] A. T.-K. Ho, “Reinventing local governments and the E-government initiative,” Public Administration Review, vol. 62, no. 4, pp. 434–443, 2002.

[67] R. Boselli, M. Cesarini, and M. Mezzanzanica, “Customer Knowledge and Service Development, the Web 2.0 Role in Co-production,” International Journal of Computer and Information Engineering, vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 1066–1072, 2008.

[68] U. Sivarajah, Z. Irani, and V. Weerakkody, “Evaluating the use and impact of Web 2.0 technologies in local government,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 32, no. 4, pp. 473–487, 2015.

[69] P. Drogkaris, S. Gritzalis, and C. Lambrinoudakis, “Transforming the Greek e-Government environment towards the e-Gov 2.0 era,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), vol. 6267 LNCS, pp. 142–149, 2010.

[70] U. Sivarajah, Z. Irani, and S. Jones, “Application of Web 2.0 Technologies in E-Government: A United Kingdom Case Study,” presented at the 47th Hawaii International Confernece on System Sciences, 2014.

[71] OECD, “OECD Digital Economy Outlook 2015,” Paris, 2015. [72] OECD, “Transformative Technologies and Jobs of the Future,” 2018. [73] A. Zanella, N. Bui, A. Castellani, L. Vangelista, and M. Zorzi, “Internet of things for smart

cities,” IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 1, no. 1, pp. 22–32, 2014. [74] K. K. Kapoor, Y. K. Dwivedi, and M. D. Williams, “Innovation adoption attributes: A review

and synthesis of research findings,” European Journal of Innovation Management, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 327–348, 2014.

[75] A. Mainka, W. Castelnovo, V. Miettinen, S. Bech-Petersen, S. Hartmann, and W. G. Stock, “Open innovation in smart cities: Civic participation and co-creation of public services,” Proceedings of the Association for Information Science and Technology, vol. 53, no. 1, pp. 1–5, 2016.

[76] S. Chatterjee, A. K. Kar, and M. P. Gupta, “Success of IoT in Smart Cities of India: An empirical analysis,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 349–361, 2018.

[77] A. Fink, Conducting Research Literature Reviews: From the Internet to Paper. California: Sage Publications, 2010.

[78] A. Liberati et al., “The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration.,” BMJ (Clinical research ed.), vol. 339, 2009.

[79] A. Tursunbayeva, M. Franco, and C. Pagliari, “Use of social media for e-Government in the public health sector: A systematic review of published studies,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 34, no. 2, pp. 270–282, 2017.




of 29

[80] D. Moher, A. Liberati, J. Tetzlaff, D. G. Altman, and The PRISMA Group, “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement,” PLoS Medicine, vol. 6, no. 7, 2009.

[81] S. E. Wildevuur and D. van Dijk, “Scottie: Design for social connectedness in healthcare,” CoDesign, vol. 7, no. 2, pp. 131–138, 2011.

[82] United Nations, “The United Nations E-Government Survey 2016: E-Government in Support of Sustainable Development.,” 2016.

[83] A. T. Chatfield, H. J. Scholl, and U. Brajawidagda, “Tsunami early warnings via Twitter in government: Net-savvy citizens’ co-production of time-critical public information services,” Government Information Quarterly, vol. 30, no. 4, pp. 377–386, 2013.

[84] E. van and T. P. S. Steen, “Why People Co-Produce: Analysing citizens’ perceptions on co-planning engagement in health care services,” Public Management Review, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. 358–382, 2014.

[85] J. Fledderus and M. Honingh, “Why people co-produce within activation services: the necessity of motivation and trust – an investigation of selection biases in a municipal activation programme in the Netherlands,” International Review of Administrative Sciences, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 69–87, 2016.

[86] P. Millward, “The ‘grey digital divide’: Perception, exclusion and barriers of access to the Internet for older people,” First Monday, vol. 8, no. 7, 2003.

[87] A. Karahasanović et al., “Co-creation and user-generated content-elderly people’s user requirements,” Computers in Human Behavior, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 655–678, 2009.

[88] S. Buchmüller, G. Joost, N. Bessing, and S. Stein, “Bridging the gender and generation gap by ICT applying a participatory design process,” Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 15, no. 7, pp. 743–758, 2011.

[89] Y.-T. Huang, “Participatory design to enhance ICT learning and community attachment: A case study in rural Taiwan,” Future Internet, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 50–66, 2015.

[90] L. Angelini, S. Carrino, O. A. Khaled, S. Riva-Mossman, and E. Mugellini, “Senior living lab: An ecological approach to foster social innovation in an ageing society,” Future Internet, vol. 8, no. 4, 2016.

[91] I. Hardill and S. Mills, “Enlivening evidence-based policy through embodiment and emotions,” in Knowledge Mobilisation and the Social Sciences: Research Impact and Engagement, 2016, pp. 155–166.

[92] B. Granier and H. Kudo, “How are citizens involved in smart cities? Analysing citizen participation in Japanese ‘smart Communities,’” Information Polity, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 61–76, 2016.

[93] S. Nambisan and Nambisan, P., “How Should Organizations Promote Equitable Distribution of Benefits from Technological Innovation in Health Care?,” AMA journal of ethics, vol. 19, no. 11, pp. 1106–1115, 2017.

[94] X. Gao, “Networked Co-Production of 311 Services: Investigating the Use of Twitter in Five U.S. Cities,” International Journal of Public Administration, vol. 41, no. 9, pp. 712–724, 2018.

[95] M. Khayyat and F. Bannister, “Towards a model for facilitating and enabling co-creation using open government data,” Information Polity, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 211–231, 2017.

[96] V. Gutiérrez et al., “Co-creating the cities of the future,” Sensors (Switzerland), vol. 16, no. 11, 2016.

[97] D. Roussinos and A. Jimoyiannis, “Analysis of students’ participation patterns and learning presence in a wiki-based project,” Educational Media International, vol. 50, no. 4, pp. 306–324, 2013.

[98] J. G. Timmerman et al., “Co-creation of an ICT-supported cancer rehabilitation application for resected lung cancer survivors: Design and evaluation,” BMC Health Services Research, vol. 16, no. 1, 2016.




of 29

[99] I. Criado and J. Villodre, “Public employees in social media communities: Exploring factors for internal collaboration using social network analysis,” First Monday, vol. 23, no. 4, 2018.

[100] E. Ferreira, “The co-production of gender and ICT: Gender stereotypes in schools,” First Monday, vol. 22, no. 10, 2017.

[101] C. Da Silva and C. Albano, “Open data intermediaries: coproduction in budget transparency,” Transforming Government: People, Process and Policy, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 119–131, 2017.

[102] J. Amann, C. Zanini, and S. Rubinelli, “What online user innovation communities can teach us about capturing the experiences of patients living with chronic health conditions. A scoping review,” PLoS ONE, vol. 11, no. 6, 2016.

[103] B. Trivellato, “How can ‘smart’ also be socially sustainable? Insights from the case of Milan,” European Urban and Regional Studies, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 337–351, 2017.

[104] N. Yaraghi, A. Y. Du, R. Sharman, R. D. Gopal, and R. Ramesh, “Health information exchange as a multisided platform: Adoption, usage, and practice involvement in service co-production,” Information Systems Research, vol. 26, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2015.

[105] I. Lecluijze, B. Penders, F. J. M. Feron, and K. Horstman, “Co-production of ICT and children at risk: The introduction of the Child Index in Dutch child welfare,” Children and Youth Services Review, vol. 56, pp. 161–168, 2015.

[106] D. H. Van, H. Keune, S. Randall, A. Yang, D. Ludlow, and A. Bartonova, “The challenge of social networking in the field of environment and health,” Environmental Health: A Global Access Science Source, vol. 11, no. SUPPL.1, 2012.

[107] F. Henwoord and A. Hart, “Articulating gender in the context of ICTs in health care: The case of electronic patient records in the maternity services,” Critical Social Policy, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 249–267, 2003.

[108] R. Medaglia, “Engaged scholarship in research on information technology in government: Stuck in the Ivory Tower?,” Information Communication and Society, pp. 246–259, 2012.

[109] T. A. Muñoz-Erickson, “Co-production of knowledge-action systems in urban sustainable governance: The KASA approach,” Environmental Science and Policy, vol. 37, pp. 182–191, 2014.

[110] S. L. Burch and S. E. Harris, “A Massive Open Online Course on climate change: The social construction of a global problem using new tools for connectedness,” Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, vol. 5, no. 5, pp. 577–585, 2014.

[111] S. King and S. Cotterill, “Transformational Government? The role of information technology in delivering citizen-centric local public services,” Local Government Studies, vol. 33, no. 3, pp. 333–354, 2007.

[112] M. Mačiulienė and A. Skaržauskienė, “Evaluation of co-creation perspective in networked collaboration platforms,” Journal of Business Research, vol. 69, no. 11, pp. 4826–4830, 2016.

D3.2 Final scientific study of co-creation and citizens ...

Documents

Transcript of D3.2 Final scientific study of co-creation and citizens ...