Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Workshop-Based Policy Platform for Public-Private Partnership (WP5): Designing Co-creative Policy-Making Platform for Regional Development of Nagano

  • Conference paper
Serviceology for Designing the Future (ICServ 2014)

Included in the following conference series:

  • 836 Accesses

Abstract

Most of local governments are now facing citizens’ disillusion to government services. This illusion is mainly coming from their unmatched desires for co-creative policy-making process. Corresponding to the recent paradigm shift of service design from the value exchange model to the value co-creation model, local governments are pressed to develop co-designing policy platform with private and non-profit stakeholders for co-producing better government services. This paper is to propose the model of Workshop-based Policy Platform for Public-Private Partnership (WP5 Model), a co-creative policy-making platform for regional development based upon both system thinking and design thinking. The authors qualitatively and quantitatively validated efficacy of the WP5 Model with two cases of Nagano local government workshops in October 2013 and in March 2014, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Karmark EC (2007) The end of government…as we know it: making public policy work. Lynne Rienner Publishers, Inc., Boulder

    Google Scholar 

  2. Kettl DF (2005) The global public management revolution, 2nd edn. Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  3. Kettl DF (2008) The next government of the United States: why our institutions fail us and how to fix them. W.W. Norton and Company, New York

    Google Scholar 

  4. Cabannes Y (2004) Participatory budgeting: a significant contribution to participatory democracy. Environ Urban 16(1):27–46

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  5. Osborne SP (2006) The new public governance? Public Manage Rev 8(3):377–387

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. OECD (2003) Open government: fostering dialogue with civil society. OECD Publishing, Paris

    Book  Google Scholar 

  7. Lathrop D, Ruma L (eds) (2010) Open government: collaboration, transparency, and participation in practice. O’Reilly, Sebastopol

    Google Scholar 

  8. Yasui T, Shirasaka S, Maeno T (2013) Designing public policy by structural shift ideation through the case of revitalizing decaying local shopping malls’. In: Proceedings of the 7th Asia-Pacific Council on Systems Engineering Conference (APCOSE 2013), Yokohama, Japan, September 8–11, 2013

    Google Scholar 

  9. Ueda K, Tanaka T, Fujita K (2008) Toward value co-creation in manufacturing and servicing. CIPR J Manuf Sci Technol 1:53–58

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rawaswamy V, Gouillart F (2010) The power of co-creation: built it with them to boost growth, productivity, and profits. Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  11. Hood C (1991) A public management for all the seasons? Public Adm 69(Spring):3–19

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Dunleavy P, Margetts H, Bastow S, Tinker J (2005) New public management is dead: long live digital-era governance. J Public Adm Res Theory 16:467–494

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ball A, Osborne SP (eds) (2011) Social accounting and public management: accountability for the common good. Routledge, New York

    Google Scholar 

  14. Nonaka I, Konno N (1998) The concept of “Ba”: building a foundation for knowledge creation. Calif Manag Rev 40(3, Spring):40–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Maeno T, Yasui T, Shirasaka S, Tomita Y, Ishibashi K, Iwata T, Yagita H (2014) System x design thinking to change the world: Keio SDM style how to make innovation. Nikkei BP, Tokyo (in Japanese)

    Google Scholar 

  16. Haruyama S, Kim SK, Beiter KA, Dijkema GPJ, de Weck OC (2012) A new project-based curriculum of design thinking with systems engineering techniques. In: Proceedings, CESUN 2012, Delft University of Technology, Delft, the Netherlands, 18–20 June 2012

    Google Scholar 

  17. Maeno T, Yasui T, Shirasaka S, Bosch O (2012) Social system design using models of social and human mind network: CVCA, WCA and Bayesian network modeling. In: Proceedings of the 4th international conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics (AHFE 2012), San Francisco, 21–25 July 2012

    Google Scholar 

  18. Senge PM (1990) The fifth discipline: the art & practice of the learning organization. Doubleday, New York

    Google Scholar 

  19. Sterman JD (2000) Business dynamics: system thinking and modeling for a complex world. McGraw Hill Higher Education, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  20. Simon HA (1967) The sciences of the artificial. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  21. Brown T (2009) Change by design: how design thinking transforms organizations and inspire innovation. Harper Business, New York

    Google Scholar 

  22. Manfred FR, de Vries K (2005) Leadership group coaching in action: the Zen of creating high performance teams. Acad Manage Perspect 19(1):61–76

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Woolley WA, Chabris CF, Pentland A, Hashimi N, Malone TW (2010) Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups. Science 330:686–688

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Nagano City Website. http://www.machidukuri-nagano.jp/070221-1-soukai-1-2.pdf. Last Accessed 30 April 2014

  25. Ministry of General Affairs Website. http://www.soumu.go.jp/iken/zaisei/H24_chiho.html. Last Accessed 30 April 2014

  26. Shinshu Innovation Project (SHIP) Facebook Page. https://www.facebook.com/ship.shinshu Last Accessed 30 April 2014

  27. Bardach E (2012) A practical guide for policy analysis: the eightfold path to more effective problem solving, 4th edn. CQ Press, London

    Google Scholar 

  28. Veehoven R (2002) Why social policy needs subjective indicators. Soc Indic Res 58(1–3):33–46

    Google Scholar 

  29. Torrance EP (1979) The search for satori and creativity. Creative Education Foundation, New York

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors of this paper acknowledge generous support extended from officials working for Nagano prefectural government, Nagano city government, Nagano Local Finance Office, Shinshu Innovation Project, Hachijuni Bank, JA Nagano and Development Bank of Japan, when the authors held two workshops in Nagano city.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of System Design and Management, Keio University, Collaboration Complex, 4-1-1 Hiyoshi, Kohoku-ku, Yokohama City, Kanagawa Prefecture, 223-8526, Japan

    Toshiyuki Yasui, Seiko Shirasaka, Yoshikazu Tomita & Kanenori Ishibashi

  2. Graduate School of System Design and Management, Keio University, Yokohama, 223-0061, Japan

    Takashi Maeno

Authors
  1. Toshiyuki Yasui
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Takashi Maeno
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Seiko Shirasaka
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Yoshikazu Tomita
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kanenori Ishibashi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Toshiyuki Yasui .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Graduate School of System Design and Management, Keio University, Yokohama, Japan

    Takashi Maeno

  2. Graduate School of Entrepreneurship, Tokyo University of Technology, Tokyo, Japan

    Yuriko Sawatani

  3. The University of Tokyo, Kashiwa, Japan

    Tatsunori Hara

Appendices

Appendices

1.1 Appendix 1: Post-Workshop Survey Sheet (on October 22nd, 2013)

(Original in Japanese, translated to English)

Answer: 5 degrees (5 = very good; 4 = good; 3 = neutral, 2 = poor; 1 = very poor)

Q1 (satisfaction): Were you satisfied with the workshop?

A: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Q2 (apprehensibility): Did you understand the contents of workshop?

A: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Q3 (Creativity-Increase): By compared with other ideation methods which you experienced in the past, how did you feel with this model particular in these points;

Q3-1 (Fluency): Was it easy to ideate?

A: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Q3-2 (Flexibility): Was it flexible to ideate?

A: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Q3-3 (Originality): Did you get original idea?

A: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Q3-4 (Elaboration): Did you elaborate to new idea?

A: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Q4 (Stage of Innovation): On which stage did you sense shift to innovative idea?

Q4-1: A. Purpose B. Function C. Component

Q4-2: Please answer freely what shift to innovative idea you experienced in this workshop.

A. (Free Answer)

1.2 Appendix 2: Post-Workshop Survey Sheet (on March 8th, 2014)

(Original in Japanese, translated to English)

Answer: 5 degrees (5 = very good; 4 = good; 3 = neutral, 2 = poor; 1 = very poor)

Q1 (satisfaction): Were you satisfied with the workshop?

A: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Q2 (apprehensibility): Did you understand the contents of workshop?

A: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Q3 (Creativity-Increase): By compared with other ideation methods which you experienced in the past, how did you feel with this model particular in these points;

Q3-1 (Fluency): Was it easy to ideate?

A: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Q3-2 (Flexibility): Was it flexible to ideate?

A: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Q3-3 (Originality): Did you get original idea?

A: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Q3-4 (Elaboration): Did you elaborate to new idea?

A: 5, 4, 3, 2, 1

Q4 (Stage of Innovation): On which stage did you sense shift to innovative idea?

Q4-1: A. Brainstorming B. Affinity Diagram C. Causal Relations Diagram and Leverage Points D. Prototyping and Story-Telling

Q4-2: Please answer freely what shift to innovative idea you experienced in this workshop.

A. (Free Answer)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer Japan

About this paper

Cite this paper

Yasui, T., Maeno, T., Shirasaka, S., Tomita, Y., Ishibashi, K. (2016). Workshop-Based Policy Platform for Public-Private Partnership (WP5): Designing Co-creative Policy-Making Platform for Regional Development of Nagano. In: Maeno, T., Sawatani, Y., Hara, T. (eds) Serviceology for Designing the Future. ICServ 2014. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55861-3_20

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55861-3_20

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Tokyo

  • Print ISBN: 978-4-431-55859-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-4-431-55861-3

  • eBook Packages: EngineeringEngineering (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation