3. 2

4. 3

5. Public Services: Services offered to the general public and/or in the public interest with the main purpose of developing "public value" http://ec.europa.eu/services_general_interest/docs/comm_quality_framework_en.pdf Public Value: The total societal value that cannot be monoplized by individuals, but is shared by all actors in society and is the outcome of all resource allocation decision (Vision Study - Impact of Information Society options on the Development of pan-European Public e- Services, 2008 )

6. Authorisation is the process of answering the what question: What purpose does this service exist to fulfil? Create is about answering the how question: What form of service delivery will meet public expectations and allow for continuous improvement? Measure is about answering the success question: How do we know if this service has achieved its objectives

7. Public sector in the EU: 50% of EU GDP, 17% of Employment, 20% of Purchasing Power, Largest Purchaser of IT, Great Influence on Market Dynamics

11. 10

13. Building on people’s existing capabilities: altering the delivery model of public services from a deficit approach to one that provides opportunities to recognise and grow people’s capabilities and actively support them to put them to use at an individual and community level. Reciprocity and mutuality: offering people a range of incentives to engage which enable us to work in reciprocal relationships with professionals and with each other, where there are mutual responsibilities and expectations. Peer support networks: engaging peer and personal networks alongside professionals as the best way of transferring knowledge. Blurring distinctions: removing the distinction between professionals and recipients, and between producers and consumers of services, by reconfiguring the way services are developed and delivered. Facilitating rather than delivering: enabling public service agencies to become catalysts and facilitators rather than central providers themselves. Assets: transforming the perception of people from passive recipients of services and burdens on the system into one where they are equal partners in designing and delivering services.

14. Co-planningCo-desing Co- financing Co- prioritization Co-managing Co- assessment Co- performing

15.  Scoping › WHO is going to do WHAT with WHOM and WHERE and WHEN?  Outcomes › WHAT are the KEY OUTCOMES desired by whom?  Benefits › WHAT STORIES OR ANECDOTES OR FACTS reveal how much service users, carers and/or other citizens feel better off from the initiative?  Costs › WHAT FINANCIAL AND NON-FINANCIAL COSTS are borne by the stakeholders (and what did they pay before)? › HOW MUCH TIME do citizens put into co-production initiative? 14

16.  Who benefits, who pays? › WHO gets what and WHO gets hit for the costs?, HOW MUCH BETTER OFF is each stakeholder in NET terms (benefits-costs)?  Asking "What If" ? › To increase the credibility of the Business Case, make easy to vary the inputs and look what happens to the results  Co-assessing the findings › Interpret the findings together with stakeholders through an interactive process; discuss and rework the business case to improve it 15

18. Political Technical Public Employees Citizens Legal Organizational Silos APIs Data Power Transparency Procure ment Regula tions Motivation Skills Control Structures Size Internal Processes Motivation Digital divide Sustainability Slow down implementation of co-production Ishikawa Fishbone Cause-Effect Diagram

19. Political Technical Public Employees Citizens Financial Organizational Cons olida tion APIs Open Data Newcomers Transparency Stress on budget New generations Skills Staff reductions BPR C-generation Social Networks Sustainability Speed up implementation of co-production Ishikawa Fishbone Cause-Effect Diagram

20. 19

21. 20