What is the definition of Co-Production?

[Sam Williams]

As part of the nef/NESTA co-production programme we have been using a working definition of co-production:

“Co-production means delivering public services in an equal and reciprocal relationship between professionals, people using services, their families and their neighbours. Where activities are co-produced in this way, both services and neighbourhoods become far more effective agents of change"

Do you agree of Disagree with this definition? How would you define it differently or clarify it further?

[Taela-mae Davies]

A good starting definition for discussion!

[John Gillespie]

Hi Sam, think this is tricky - there's lots of different types of services, some befitting more equal partnerships in delivery... and some - refuge collection? - where the best services are likely to be delivered by fairly top down organisations... If we use the working definition, does this restrict the range of where co-production could be applied to a fairly narrow range of services (thinking health, social care.... etc) which seem more amenable to this kind of equality... or have I not grasped the point somehow... What interests me is what values people see as underpinning co-productive approaches? - respect, connection... equality perhaps... others?

[Maureen Joyce Ukairo]

If the term 'co-production' is to be used generally, that is, outside the Co-production practitioners' group - I suggest it be expanded, maybe to 'Co-production in Public Services'. The general public might well think of production in the old way as producing things, in which case a workers' co-op, or a factory under threat of bankruptcy that is taken over by its employees, can be seen as examples of co-production.

Otherwise, I think co-production can be applied everywhere in the public services, for instance in the case of refuse collection, as mentioned by John Gillespie, this depends on some co-operation by the general public as the point of sorting, etc.

Values?- i think these would be embedded in the way things are set up and needn't be in the definition any more than those of equality and reciprocity are in it already.

Maureen ukairo

[Bren Cook]

Would you want to say why kind of change? Should we say social, community, fantastic change? Just a thought.

[Maureen Joyce Ukairo]

My idea is specific and I am not sure if it would actually fit in with a definition, although it is definitely a 'community' idea. Also I am not coming into this site as a professional, but as one of the individuals who would gain from links with professionals and all their skills and experience!

In short, i have developed the idea of a Focus House, a building in the centre of a small community and owned by it, which could enable all kinds of projects to emanate from it, besides being a project in itself. I refer to something much smaller, and with different objectives, than a community centre, in fact it would encourage 'members' or residents to use Community Centres and other amenities in the neighbourhood.

If this concept is of the least interest to anyone reading this, especially to you, Bren, I could send all that i have thought and written on it; - to date, just to myself!

Actually, my answer to the question is: I think the definition is fine.

 

 

[Bren Cook]

Hi Maureen,

 

I try to work on the principle that 'the ocean refuses no rivers' or in Lancastrian parlance 'I refuse nowt (nothing) only blows (being struck about the head with a clog)' therefore I'd love to have a look at your ideas and writings.

 

Many thanks

 

Bren

Maureen Joyce Ukairo said:

My idea is specific and I am not sure if it would actually fit in with a definition, although it is definitely a 'community' idea. Also I am not coming into this site as a professional, but as one of the individuals who would gain from links with professionals and all their skills and experience!

In short, i have developed the idea of a Focus House, a building in the centre of a small community and owned by it, which could enable all kinds of projects to emanate from it, besides being a project in itself. I refer to something much smaller, and with different objectives, than a community centre, in fact it would encourage 'members' or residents to use Community Centres and other amenities in the neighbourhood.

If this concept is of the least interest to anyone reading this, especially to you, Bren, I could send all that i have thought and written on it; - to date, just to myself!

Actually, my answer to the question is: I think the definition is fine.

 

 

[Maureen Joyce Ukairo]

Hi Bren,

I don't think my ideas are relevant to the subject of 'what is the Definition of Co-Production'?' and they would clutter up this site (rather empty but not mine to clutter): - but I have just created a new email address - [e-mail] - and if you would be so kind as to message me on it, I can send you some of my writings,

All for now miduck (Leicestershire), and ta

Maureen

 

 

[Peter Roberts]

It isn't wide enough.

 1. The private, public and not-for-profit sectors all exist in the money economy.  Edgar Cahn's Core Economy operates in the world of the family, friends, community and neighbourhood and is based on relationships, not money. He believes without a functioning Core Economy there can be no Monetary Economy. The definition says nothing about linking the two.

2. The Public Good co-produced by a strong, vibrant, networked local community is not itself a public service.

3. Most people's interactions are with front-line workers, not professionals. The front-line workers are unlikely to have equal and reciprocal relationships with people if they don't have equal and reciprocal relationships with the professionals / managers.

4. The definition has 'people using services' but doesn't say anything about them co-designing and co-delivering these services.

[Juliet Hall]

i am interested in the whole process of co-design, co-production and the co-creation of value.  what is the origin of your definition??