Co-creation as a relational service

A survey that was conducted among pilots at an early stage in co-creation indicated the importance of managerial role in co-creation expressing statements such as: “implementing co-creative methods require major changes in organisational structure/ideology;” that “top-management and political support is a major issue in co-creation;” “street-level professionals’ approach is a major issue in co-creation” and that “time is an important issue” to consider in sustaining co-creation and achieving positive results.

Transactional perspective

A dominant approach to service provision treats service provision more in terms of clearly predefined expected outcomes (such as increasing people’s employability, economic self-sufficiency, educational level, decreasing obesity or reducing the crime rates). These outcomes are often predefined without much consultation with the targeted individuals and the service providers act by following set, often standardized procedures (how you should act), to achieve the aimed positive effects.

From this perspective, service providers are expected to be able to define who and under what conditions are eligible for the services but also address the perceived risks based solely on their professional knowledge, set routines and expected outputs (consultation sessions, information sharing, meetings, etc).  That is to say, a complex social reality is addressed by a transaction of service from A to B or a procedure that is assumed possible to predefine completely. Such approach to service provision is called a transactional approach. This makes it easier from a management perspective to follow up and control the service provision and its outputs (perhaps job offers communicated to an individual), it is often ill suited for welfare services addressing complex human needs.

This perspective sees individuals supported by services more in terms of risks and as lacking resources. Besides, the dominant motivation for staff and managers,  becomes following the preset system routines and monitoring expected outputs (activities) rather than being truly guided by individuals needs and outcomes (expected changes in peoples live). This we call the generation of internal value.

Relational perspective

From a contrasting relational perspective, service mission is dominated primarily by incentives to generate value and benefit for the end users. The needs of individuals supported by welfare services are seen as individual and often unique. A relational service is defined not only in terms of outputs (mostly activities) that can be easily verified but also in terms of intended outcomes (impact for individuals). These cannot be measured the same way as outputs but can only be reported and deliberated as experiences. To learn about the unique needs and service value experiences, on the one hand, and how service offerings on the other hand may be identified and utilized, service providers need to engage in conversations with these individuals. This requires building more sincere relationships. Relational services therefore cannot be reduced to a standard, completely predefined script to follow. Neither can its success be assessed based on offered routine activities (outputs).

A relational service presents a radically different approach to how services are organized and improved. It affects both service providing staff and management.

Co-creation requires a relational approach to services. This is because the value of the service offering for the individual is created during the very exchange of (knowledge, experience and resources) between the service delivering side and the individual supported by the service.

Co-creation recognizes that services need to be constantly evolving based on dialogues that include those supported by the services.

This implies broadening accountability from the goals of service providing organizations to service beneficiaries.

It also implies a need to better orchestrate services towards a more coherent delivery to better address individual’s supported by services needs and service value.

Co-creation implies a particular approach to service ethics (See more under “The Ethical Compass”).

In CoSIE we have been preoccupied with such public welfare services that are associated with care, wellbeing and development that are the long-term aims signaling moral values and intentions.

To deliver services that specific targeted individual may value in relation to such broad moral aims requires establishing a shared understanding with that individual about the particular goals she has with the service to meet her important needs. This can only be achieved in interactions and through meaningful dialogues. To be able to enter a meaningful dialogue professionals may need help perhaps with relevant approach and pedagogical tools or suitable forms of communication.

CoSIE evidence indicates that individuals receiving services may undertake more active roles in dialogues about redesigning services to support them. To take full advantage of this co-creation requires redefining, often radically, the roles of service professionals.

Please reflect upon following in relation to your own (or chosen pilot) context:

What implications service as a relational approach has for service provision and management?

How to know what are the particular values and goals individuals supported by services associate with the services?

What, if any, changes in the service provision and management may be required?

Below you find a conversation among project researchers on co-creation as a relational service

Immerse yourself:

• What is co-creation?
• Re-defined relationships with individuals supported by services
• Co-creation as a moral reordering?
• Co-creation, cornerstones and challenges
• How to shift towards co-creative governance?