In response to calls to address complex problems, governments have been experimenting for some time with co-production to complement standard rational-technical approaches. However, despite their commendable intentions, they... [ view full abstract ]
In response to calls to address complex problems, governments have been experimenting for some time with co-production to complement standard rational-technical approaches. However, despite their commendable intentions, they continue to struggle. One of the many reasons put forward for the lack of ability to shift ways of working is that co-production approaches are in tension with established bureaucratic norms and practices (Getha-Taylor et al. 2011). Indeed, in Australia, several evaluations of attempts to introduce more participatory approaches have identified a lack of capacity on the part of public leaders, and a lack of investment in further developing that capacity, as key elements in the failure to embed new ways of working (these evaluations are summarised in Phillips-Brown, Reddel, and Gleeson 2012).
Notwithstanding the emergence of this clear pattern, there has been a surprising lack of research focusing on how public leadership engages with tensions between old and new modes of policy planning and review. Getha-Taylor et al. (2011) suggest that further research is needed on the ‘forces influencing how leaders balance competing values’, and the impact of this challenge on the successful implementation of co-production of public value. They go further in suggesting that heuristic inquiry, and more specifically narrative inquiry, may provide a useful avenue for exploring how ‘social change’ happens within the public sector.
In this paper we explore the mediating role of public administration practices and processes in implementing reform. We focus on the outcomes and impacts of public leadership in the implementation of co-production in remote Indigenous Australia. Through interview based narrative inquiry, we look at how the traditional practices of public administration are perceived by contemporary public leaders as mediating what has been achieved and what is seen as achievable through their reform efforts. The focus of our analysis is on the contextual understandings of the public managers who designed, implemented and monitored the new programs.
We draw on an extended concept of Moore’s strategic triangle (Moore 2013, Bryson et al. 2017) to explore the barriers to developing improved capacity to co-produce public value – barriers that are embodied within the standard logics of public policy practice. This framework also allows examination of the way those responsible for making operational judgements about implementation exercise discretion within an established policy regime, demonstrating how they use practical heuristics to navigate the tensions between old and new ways of working. We argue that these practical judgements are central to the conduct of policy implementation and have important implications for policy success or otherwise.
We suggest that, if the new ways of working are to succeed, the enabling environment requires specific actions to shape or create new “logics” which are supportive of co-production. We contend that paying specific attention to strengthening an enabling environment of logics and practices supportive of co-production would allow public leaders to engage more productively with the tensions between old and new ways of working.
Value co-creation, co-design and co-production in public services
Brown__Head_presentation_final.pdf 