Stakeholders & Beneficiaries

The main beneficiaries of Esélykör are: people with disabilities living in Székesfehérvár, non-governmental organizations dealing with disability issues, non-governmental development organizations, Székesfehérvár City (local government). The member organizations of Esélykör have significant expertise among deaf and hard of hearing people, people with reduced mobility, people with visual impairments and citizens with mental disabilities.

Co-creation process

Esélykör’s main activities are:
  • Sensitizing society to the problems of their disabled peers.
  • Providing services to citizens with disabilities in Székesfehérvár.
  • Contributing to the employment opportunities of the disabled people in Székesfehérvár through organizing joint programs and operating information channels.
  • The members of the network work together to promote their interests through Esélykör.
The main innovation of Esélykör is that it has orchestrated strong cooperation among NGOs supporting people with disabilities in Székesfehérvár, and because of this bond it is able to facilitate a prosperous collaboration with the local government, to represent and act for the interests of the citizens it represents. Esélykör has an effect on the involved non-governmental organizations as well through the Civil Centre Foundation’s (CiCE’s) development activities. The municipality, although being an informal network, mentions Esélykör in its strategic documents and its funding has a separate line in the city budget. Esélykör is a bottom-up, voluntary and spontaneous innovation network, operating as an informal network at the moment. Esélykör can be interpreted as a centralized network with CiCE at its core as a NAO (Νetwork Αdministration Οrganization).

Digital Transformation Process

This case study is not about a digital transformation process, but about social innovation.

Results, Outcomes & Impacts

As a result of the activities of Esélykör, disabled citizens of Szekesfehervar are able to defend their interests more effectively, and organizations working for people with different disabilities have a cooperative attitude instead of their previous competitive approach. Not only can their services deliver greater coverage, but also the organizations’ tasks and operations become more efficient and transparent. Communication with non-professional organizations (municipalities, companies, the general public) has improved as well. The network is able to use municipal resources more efficiently along the designated goals (e.g. social sensitization). NGOs are able to respond more flexibly to social needs by working in a network. The network can utilize the capacities of all organizations in a synergic way, so it can respond better to unexpected situations. The network has greater social embeddedness than the individual organizations themselves, so they can act more effectively to assert their interests.

Challenges & Bottlenecks

The general management knowledge and the legal knowledge of small NGOs are insufficient, their objectives are not coherent and consistent. Their internal communication is ineffective, it is often full of conflict. Due to lack of management knowledge and internal conflicts, the civil sector is not credible to other actors of the economy. If they are not able to articulate their goals (social impact), then it is not worth working with them. There is no consensus-based social vision, this way there is no strategy. While NGOs compete for scarce resources, which may be good in certain cases, they do not develop a culture of cooperation. The barrier to municipal and civil cooperation is that the municipality can only cooperate with a non-governmental organization that is legally registered. However, this entails significant costs and time, meaning that the transaction costs of cooperation for many civilians outweigh the benefits. These self-organized civil groups are not enter collaboration with the municipality in a network system.

Transferability & Replicability

Based on the effective operation of Esélykör, the municipality would like to initiate similar processes among NGOs of other professional areas to establish networks and to take over complex social services from the municipality. It also shows that the Municipality wants to launch a planned, top-down innovation process, based on the experiences with the bottom-up innovation process of Esélykör.

Success Factors

The city (local government) saw the value of working with NGOs in the delivery of public services, but also realized that communicating with them separately would create an inefficient system and therefore supported the establishment of the network. The city administration visits Esélykör’s event regularly. They also support the communication of the network, which is beneficial to both actors, as of course this also serves political purposes. The administration listens to Esélykör’s suggestions, integrates them into its strategies in so far it is possible, and contributes to their implementation as well. European Union grants and funds also support network based operation models, as these organizations alone do not have the capacity to prepare, submit and implement large and complex projects. Non-governmental organizations cannot take over complex public services from the local government, while a network of NGOs is able to do so. Everyone can put their best knowledge, experience and resources into this network, and build a comprehensive, complex service portfolio.

Lessons learned

The success of the network is largely due to the activity and coordination capabilities of the network administration organization (NAO), the CiCE. The structure of the network, the presence of a NAO, contributes significantly to the efficient and effective functioning of the network, which is why we consider innovation primarily as structural innovation. The professional work of neither the local government nor the individual NGOs has changed radically, but they have become more efficient and effective.

Stakeholders & Beneficiaries

The key stakeholders included policymakers and public agents from the three municipalities as well as agents of the Lille European Metropole (MEL) to check the coordination between the policies and the scales of service implementation. Private stakeholders were associated according to the themes of the workshops (real estate companies, car parks managers, craftsmen, local shops,…). Local service designers or digital startups were associated to the Living Lab to help public agents and citizens during the design sessions or the prototyping of new digital services. They participated to the knowledge transfer and to co-creation practices for digital transformation. Beneficiaries were twofold: citizens and public agents. L.I.V.E. addressed citizens in order to invent new digital services that were solutions for “real needs” in the city (local e-commerce, car parks, digital application for leisure, co-working spaces, connected urban furniture…). But the Living Lab addressed public agents too for them to better understand the “real needs of citizens”, to share new knowledge and competencies about open data and social media and to create new public policies in the three cities.

Co-creation process

The co-creation process was divided into two stages: an experimental phase in 2017 and a structuration phase in 2018 and 2019. During the experimental phase, inhabitants were invited to discuss about their needs: 30 to 70 inhabitants per workshop “played the game” to imagine what types of digital tools could be created through a Living Lab to “imagine a better city together”. During the structuration phase, there were less inhabitants per workshop and sometimes only public agents and stakeholders according to the themes of the sessions, even if incentives to participation was diffused through websites and social networks. Co-creation process was considered by public managers and stakeholders as a “pleasant way of working” to solve problems by an innovative methodology. There were no dedicated place for the Living Lab but workshops were alternatively organised in one of the local community in respect of a “political equilibrium”. Agents of each collectivity were invited to share their different competencies with the help of designers specialised in design thinking or service design. Some startups were invited to prototype some digital solutions according to the ideas of inhabitants and stakeholders, and only some of these solutions were tested with inhabitants.

Digital Transformation Process

The digital transformation process concerned two types of users. On the one hand, citizens were the main target of the Living Lab project: L.I.V.E was a method to imagine a “better life” in the city thanks to new digital services, not created by American firms (GAFAM) or by Parisian Startups but co-created with citizens and local Startups to meet what they called “real needs” of citizens. On the other, public agents of the three implied cities were the secondary target: in place of digital services imagined by IT public services in a Top Down approach, the L.I.V.E. project was a methodology to help public agents to better understand the “real needs” of citizens or public agents following a bottom up approach. It was also a methodology to transform IT public departments of the municipalities, that have no skills about open data, social media or API tools.

Results, Outcomes & Impacts

As the experience lasted less than three years, it was too short to obtain significant results in term of new digital public services or even private digital tools for inhabitants. The main outcomes could be political as three mayors accepted to work with citizens and allowed their public agents for sharing time and local data. COVID-19 was a barrier to finalise some projects during the consolidation phase of the program. Value creation was less in the domain of public cost savings, neither in the creation of new digital public services than in a change of mindset and the discovery of service design and design thinking with inhabitants and stakeholders.

Challenges & Bottlenecks

A first challenge was the participation of inhabitants. If they were mobilised during the experimental phase, in 2017, to discuss about their needs, it was more difficult in the structuration phase of the Living Lab (2018-2019): citizens had not always time to participate to all the co-creative workshops, in particular if they were organised in the afternoon. A second challenge was institutional even if elected people were at the origin of the Living Lab project. Each local community constitutes the territorial and administrative framework for public services to inhabitants. So co-creation of new public services could face to administrative or legal barriers. Organising workshops from place to place without any dedicated building to the Living Lab was a way to mobilise inhabitants but was finally a barrier for mixing the population of the three cities. If, on the contrary, geographical mobility was not a problem for public agents and stakeholders, some public managers consider that a dedicated place for the Living Lab could be a “symbol of the political will” to work together and could be a lever for attracting potential (private) investors. Bottlenecks are linked to administrative traditions. Design workshops are important to identify real needs, to imagine new scenarios, to test prototypes and to identify irritants with inhabitants. But public managers consider that it is difficult: 1) to make “quick and dirty” with public procurement; 2) to «co-manage» new services with users. If validation of new policies is the role of elected people, production of digital services is the role of IT service Directorates of the local collectivities. Usual routines of service production and delivery are the main attribute of IT Directorates: if they agree with the role of users in the co-design phase, they are not ready for co-production and co-delivery with inhabitants.

Transferability & Replicability

The L.I.V.E. project is not at a stage of transferability. The scale of replicability could be the transferability of design processes from a public service to another public service in the framework of the three municipalities. Nevertheless, the aim was to diffuse to “other cities” new practices experimented through the Living Lab, because the project was co-financed by European funds and had to promote the results at a larger scale. But the end of the financial support and because of COVID-19, experimentations were stopped: the last news on Facebook or Twitter was posted in June 2020. Impossible to find any other information about “L.I.V.E” or “www.imaginezlaville.live/” on the Net in 2021. Transferability and replicability seem so to be largely compromised. Nevertheless, the Living Lab approach is still applied through a place dedicated to public service design in the building of the MEL. In 2020, Lille Metropole was also the World Capital of Design to improve public policies through a Living Lab approach at the scale of 90 local communities and more than 1.2 millions inhabitants, when L.I.V.E. project concerned 3 local collectivities and 250.000 inhabitants.

Success Factors

For local public managers, a criteria of success would be better public services thanks to Open data. L.I.V.E was an opportunity to test in real life with inhabitants some solutions and tools usually developed by Startups. Local collectivities can use data of their internal professional services in order to create new piloting tools before a larger openness of public data. For local authorities, data can lead to a revolution in public services and “doing together” with inhabitants and stakeholders “makes sense because nobody knows everything”.

Lessons learned

L.I.V.E. was imagined in the context of the digital transformation of public policies and local administrations. How to improve the relationship between citizens, elected people and public agents? How to switch from existing ICT tools (websites of municipalities) to online public services? The originality of the L.I.V.E. project is that workshops were organised in 2017 with the inhabitants to define the themes to explore and invent “the City of Tomorrow together”. The Living Lab workshops in 2018-2019 were planned to work on the priorities previously defined by citizens in 2017: family recreation, car parking, co-working, local trade, data for local collectivities, connected urban furniture, nature in the city, digital at school. Even if the project lasted for only three years, conditioned by the funding, the important outcome is not new digital services (still at a stage of “work in progress”) but the change of cultural mindset for public agents and inhabitants. Nevertheless, elected representatives have to take final decisions for public policies but co-creation of services through Living Lab methodology is difficult to integrate in a traditional political process. So, for transforming public services and public policies through co-creation with citizens and users, it is often “necessary to go under the radars”, working in small groups to encourage co-design. Then administrative managers have to list the priority projects to be proposed for a political validation.

Stakeholders & Beneficiaries

The key stakeholders include the Scottish Government, policymakers, stakeholder organizations, and frontline staff of the social security system under the Department for Work and Pensions. The key beneficiaries include the service users of the social security system, organizations and wider society.

Co-creation process

Two key points of value co-creation have been identified in this case study. The first point is service design, where ‘experience panels’ are established to draw on service users’ experiences of the current social security system. At the same point, Stakeholder Reference Groups have also been organized for local authorities, third sector organizations and, to some extent, for-profit organizations to share knowledge about social security. These processes have engaged stakeholder organizations in providing an important perspective and knowledge to shape service improvement while connecting service users who have lived experience of the services. The second point is service delivery, where the service users access appropriate services and interact with frontline service staff knowledgeable and capable of supporting the service users. Positive relationships developed from the interaction are regarded as contributing to value creation. The service users’ families and friends are also seen as facilitating value creation by helping service users with complex procedures to claim benefits.  

Digital Transformation Process

The digital transformation process was not examined in this case.  

Results, Outcomes & Impacts

The main impacts are twofold. First, at the service design stage, the involvement of individuals who have directly experienced services has greatly contributed to service reform. A lived experience-based approach has been described as outweighing any value that could be created by professionally designing the service. Second, at the service delivery stage, service interactions between the frontline service staff and the service users influence the service users’ service experience and thus shape their perceptions of value. A trusted relationship developed between the service users and the frontline service staff would contributed to the effectiveness of the service and ultimately facilitate value creation for the service.  

Challenges & Bottlenecks

Four challenges have been identified for the service design stage. First, the involvement of public service users in the experience-led/based service design has raised concern over excluding stakeholder groups. Second, there are incongruent perspectives of value and goals. Third, there has been concern over whether strong political leadership is in place to effectively manage and preservice the involvement of service users. Finally, the legacy of the UK social security system has been found constraining the value creation process. At the service delivery stage, constraints on value creation and co-creation are mainly reflected on barriers to service interactions, including the inaccessibility of services, a lack of support for vulnerable service users’ interactions with frontline staff, a lack of knowledge, expertise and a caring approach among frontline staff, a lack of continuity in service provision, and the stigmatizing, inhumane and adversarial culture in the current system.

Transferability & Replicability

The experience of developing the new Social Security Agency in Scotland may be transferred and replicated in other public service settings.

Success Factors

During the service design stage, a progressive approach, such as capacity building sessions, has facilitated and encouraged vulnerable service users to share their knowledge and ‘unique perspective’ on service experience to make novel service solutions to having the opportunity for value co-creation. During the service delivery stage the frontline staff’s knowledge and capacity to support service users are perceived as critical to the process of value co-creation by making the application for social benefits easier and developing positive service relationships with service users and frontline staff.  

Lessons learned

Three practical lessons have been learnt from this case study. First, the frontline service staff play an indispensable role in co-creating value during service interactions. They need to manage the service relationship and possess the necessary soft skills to engage with and understand service users’ narratives to co-create value. Hence, appropriate staff training is emphasized. Second, service processes need to be accessible and support value creation for individual service users. Third, the organizational culture translated through both the approach of frontline staff and the supporting service processes has implications for the extent to which service users view themselves and public service staff view service users as capable of contributing to value creation processes. Thus, the organizational culture was important in supporting value creation.

Stakeholders & Beneficiaries

The key stakeholders include the Scottish Government, policy makers, agency staff working on the operational level, and service users and external stakeholders participating in service design and testing. The key beneficiaries are public service users of social security services, the agency itself and wider society.

Co-creation process

The key stakeholders include the Scottish Government, policy makers, agency staff working on the operational level, and service users and external stakeholders participating in service design and testing. The key beneficiaries are public service users of social security services, the agency itself and wider society.

Digital Transformation Process

Not relevant

Results, Outcomes & Impacts

Since the case is still at the design stage, it is too early to evaluate the outcomes or impacts of the service design. However, the analysis of evidence shows that the service design has supported a cultural shift within the Scottish Government towards a user-centred narrative.

Challenges & Bottlenecks

Three broad challenges for service design have been identified in this case study. First, the setting of social security services is extremely complex. Although it is necessary to divide this large-scale task of service design into small and manageable chunks, it is challenging to fit the design of each chunk back together without losing the sight of a big picture. The complexity of the service setting has negatively affected the effectiveness of service design. The second challenge is also related to a public service setting where it is difficult for wider cultural change to take place. There is an understanding that public services could produce incremental improvement rather than complete solutions. Therefore, there is a bottleneck of the scope of continuous improvement. Third, the case study has revealed a lack of service designers and other user-centred professionals in public service context, which leads to a lack of input from a professional service designer in some parts of public service design process.

Transferability & Replicability

The methods of service design in the new Social Security Agency in Scotland may be transferred and replicated in other public service settings.

Success Factors

The success factors are twofold. First, the case study reveals that the service design process has supported a service user perspective, which focuses on the needs of social security service users and enables easier access to the services for them. Second, the service design process in the case has supported a holistic view of services, which provides a strategic overview of how different services under the social security interact and facilitates the creation of a seamless service experience for service users.

Lessons learned

Four practical lessons have been learnt from this case. First, service design is facilitated by a degree of flexibility at the operational level. Second, a holistic view of the service experience needs maintenance throughout the design process. Third, service design in practice requires capacity building and organisational learning. Fourth, the rationale of human-centred design approach needs to be balanced against the protection of the public purse.