Co-producing Smart City Services: Does One Size Fit All?

  • Krassimira PaskalevaEmail author
  • Ian Cooper
  • Grazia Concilo
Part of the Public Administration and Information Technology book series (PAIT, volume 24)


Studies have shown the potential of co-producing public services with the stakeholders for more efficient and sustainable smart city services. However, evidence-based records of the success of such initiatives are limited and there is a strong deficit of analysis of what makes co-production efficient. This study addresses these limitations by exploring the methods, tools and techniques for managing the process effectively, and the skills required to do so, drawing on both literature and empirical data. A case study method and survey is employed to uncover specific factors and challenges operating among public service project managers in European smart cities—based on experience gained from Peripheria, a multidisciplinary project focused on the co-production of Future Internet-enabled services. Six pilot cases are explored to understand how each of them set about engaging their stakeholders in service co-production in order to reach the desired services and impacts for their smart city. A clear pattern emerged from the results of the comparative analysis, showing that, for the most part, there is no one-size-fits-all that can be applied to the cities’ attempts to engage their stakeholders in efficient service co-production. The evidence collected also suggests that public service managers need not only the tools and techniques to encourage collaboration between the multiplicity of stakeholders involved in co-production but also the skills and capacity for managing the governance of co-production. It is these twin messages about no ‘one-size-fits-all’ and the importance of context-specific governance issues about who takes part in decision-making—that need to be carried forward from this study.


Smart city Public services Co-production Tools and techniques Skills Governance 


  1. Alford, J. (2009). Engaging public sector clients: From service-delivery to co-production. Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. Boyle, B., & Harris, M. (2012). The challenge of co-production: How equal partnerships between professionals and the public are crucial to improving public services. (NESTA report). Retrieved from
  3. Brudney, J., & England, R. (1983). Toward a definition of the coproduction concept. Public Administration Review, 43(1), 59–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bergvall-Kaareborn, B., Howcroft, D., Ståhlbröst, A., & Wikman, A. M. (2010). Participation in living lab: Designing systems with users. In Design science research (pp. 317–326). Springer.Google Scholar
  5. Cahn, E., & Gray, C. (2013). Co-production from a normative perspective. In New public governance, the third sector, and co-production (vol. 7, p. 129).Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, B. (2016). The emergence of the urban entrepreneur: How the growth of cities and the sharing economy are driving a new breed of innovators. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.Google Scholar
  7. ENoLL. (2010). European conference on ‘smart cities’ as centres for user-driven open innovation. Retrieved from
  8. European Commission. (2008). The Future of Internet: A compendium of European projects on ICT research supported by the EU 7th framework programme for RTD. Retrieved from Scholar
  9. European Commission. (2011). Innovation in public administration. Innobarometer 2010: Analytical Report. Retrieved from
  10. Gil-Garcia, R., Helbig, N., & Ojo, A. (2014). Being smart: Emerging technologies and innovation in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly, 1(I8), 11–28.Google Scholar
  11. Gottfridsson, P. (2012). Joint service development—The creations of the prerequisite for the service development. Managing Service Quality, 22(1), 21–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hernández-Muñoz, J. M., Vercher, J. B., Muñoz, L., Galache, J. A., Presser, M., Gómez, L. A. H. et al. (2011). Smart cities at the forefront of the future internet. In The Future Internet (pp. 447–462). Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: Springer.Google Scholar
  13. Kujala, S. (2003). User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges. Behaviour & Information Technology, 22(1), 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Levén, P., & Holmström, J. (2008). Consumer co-creation and the ecology of innovation: A living lab approach. In V. Asproth (Ed.), Public systems in the future: Possibilities, challenges and pitfalls. Åre, Sweden.Google Scholar
  15. Meijer, A., & Bolívar, R. (2015). Governing the smart city: A review of the literature on smart urban governance. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(2), 1–17.Google Scholar
  16. Naphade, M., Banavar, G., Harrison, C., & Paraszczak, J. (2011). Smarter cities and their innovation challenges. Computer, 44(6), 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. OECD. (2012). Innovation in public services: Context, solutions and challenges. OECD, Paris. Retrieved from
  18. OECD. (2014). Innovating the public sector: From ideas to impact. OECD Conference Centre, Paris. Retrieved from
  19. OECD. (2011). Together for better public services: Partnering with citizens and civil society.
  20. Osborne, S., and L. Brown. (2013). Introduction: innovation in public services. In S. Osborne & L. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of Innovation in Public Services (pp. 165–172). Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  21. Osborne, S., Radnor, Z., Vidal, I., & Kinder, T. (2014). A sustainable business model for public service organizations? Editorial: Special Issue: Co-production and Public Services, Public Management Review, 3, 165–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ostrom, E. (1996). Crossing the great divide: Co-production, synergy, and development. World Development, 24(6), 1073–1087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Paskaleva, K., Cooper, I., Linde, P., Peterson, B. and Goetz, Ch. (2015). Smart city stakeholder engagement: making living labs work. In M. Bolívar (Ed.), Transforming city governments for successful smart cities (pp. 115–145). Springer.Google Scholar
  24. Paskaleva, K. (2011). Smart cities: A nexus of open innovation? Intelligent Buildings International, 3(3), 153–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Paskaleva, K., & Cooper, I. (2016a). What next for innovation for public services: Management skills for co-production in the smart city services. Working paper, Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, University of Manchester.Google Scholar
  26. Paskaleva, K., & Cooper, I. (2016b). Open innovation evaluation for internet-enabled services in smart cities. Paper considered for publication in Technovation, under first revision.Google Scholar
  27. Pestoff, V. (2012). Co-production and third sector social services in Europe—Some crucial conceptual issues. In T. Pestoff & B. Verschuere (Eds.), New public governance, the third sector and co-production. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  28. Peripheria. (n.d.). The Project. Peripheria Newsletter #2, August 2012.
  29. Pollitt, C., Geert, B., & Löffler, E. (2006). Making quality sustainable: Co-design, co-decide, co-produce, co-evaluate. Report of the 4QC Conference, Tempere, 1–22.Google Scholar
  30. Sicilia, M., Guarini, E., Sancino, A., Andreani, M., & Ruffini, R. (2016). Public services management and co-production in multi-level governance settings. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 82(1), 8–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Schaffers, H. et al.(2012). FIREBALL White paper on smart cities as innovation ecosystems sustained by the Future Internet.Google Scholar
  32. Seligman, A. 1997. The problem of trust. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Strokosch, K. (2013). Co-production and innovation in public services: Can co-production drive innovation? In S. Osborne and L. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of innovation in public services. Edgar Elgar.Google Scholar
  34. Svara, J. (2013). Leading successful innovation in local public services. In S. Osborne and L. Brown (Eds.), Handbook of innovation in public services. Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  35. Vikas, J., & Shalini, K. (2011). E-government implementation challenges at local level: A comparative study of government and citizens’ perspectives. Electronic Government, 8(2), 208–225.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Krassimira Paskaleva
    • 1
    Email author
  • Ian Cooper
    • 2
  • Grazia Concilo
    • 3
  1. 1.Manchester Institute of Innovation Research, Manchester Alliance Business SchoolUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUK
  2. 2.Eclipse Research ConsultantsCambridgeUK
  3. 3.Politecnico Di MilanoMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations