Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Drawing on three semi-structured focus group interviews with a sample of 14 social hackathon participants in southern Estonia, this article reports the findings of participants’ experiences of the co-creation process in developing new services or innovative solutions to community problems by using a method of social hackathon. In general, hackathon was perceived as a creative and ‘out-of-the-box’ type of approach, a non-traditional way of thinking and an openness to constructing solutions in a new and creative way. Furthermore, the hackathon was recognised as a fitting tool for the social worker to find solutions in the community with service users.

Keywords

Co-creation community development social hackathon social innovation social services

Introduction

In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in research on co-creation as a new development strategy for the public sector (Voorberg et al., 2014), especially on the value of co-creation in business studies (Alves et al., 2016; Kukk et al., 2014; Petri and Jacob, 2016). Nevertheless, studies focusing on education, healthcare, hospitality and professional services can also be found (Bagdoniene and Valkauskiene, 2018; Osei-Frimpong et al., 2016). Several authors refer to new service innovations in communities in relation to co-creation and its relevance to service development (Sembada, 2018; Yang et al., 2016), addressing the needs of communities.

Bagdoniene and Valkauskiene (2018: 104) argue that changes in the professional services industry require more iterative and collaborative development to produce solutions that are more creative. Customer co-creation has become increasingly popular among companies, where engagement and communication with customers are seen as determinants of the success of a new service (Gustafsson et al., 2012; Verleye, 2015). Furthermore, policymaking is no longer seen as a top-down or one-way process; similarly, services are no longer simply delivered by professional and managerial staff in public agencies, but are co-produced by users and their communities – users and other members of the community play a large role in shaping decisions and outcomes (Bovaird, 2007). Tossavainen (2016) discusses the paradigm shift from the production of value for the customer to the co-creation of value with the customer. Customer needs and experiences here are vital for service development. A similar idea can be drawn in relation to social services, where clients are considered experts, not the service providers. As Dubicz (2012) elaborates, clients have expertise in the area of local knowledge – clients know their lived experiences. This new paradigm emphasises the capacity of users to be active agents in shaping their own lives, rather than seeing them as passive beneficiaries of welfare (Slettebø, 2013).

Despite the growing interest in this topic, there is a lack of research on co-creation in the context of social services development. Bagdoniene and Valkauskiene (2018) underline the importance of identifying clients’ needs in developing services, which requires client involvement in service delivery. In order to increase the understanding of co-creation in service development, this article is an attempt to report on the findings of the first service experience co-creation study in the context of social hackathons in one region of Estonia. Specifically, the article explores how social hackathon as a form of social innovation supports the co-creation process of service development in the communities. Thus, the purpose of this study is to gain a better understanding of stakeholders’ co-creation in the process of developing new services or innovative solutions to community problems.

Co-creation: Beyond participation in service creation

The concept of co-creation has been internationally defined by scholars to mean a variety of things, including innovation activities, interaction and joint value creation (Bagdoniene and Valkauskiene, 2018; Oertzen et al., 2018; Ramaswamy and Ozcan, 2018; Tossavainen, 2016). Nevertheless, there is a common understanding in this concept: active involvement of the service user. Ramaswamy and Ozcan (2018) highlight ‘an enactment of interactional creation across interactive system-environments’ (p. 200). Oertzen et al. (2018) indicate the mutual creation of services during service processes and innovation activities, similar to other scholars, who point out the importance of participation in the process (Greenhalgh et al., 2016; Vega-Vazquez et al., 2015).

Co-creation as a form of collaboration brings the stakeholders into the process and builds commitment to the service. The benefits of co-creation include solving issues, learning from each other and creating useful knowledge for all parties involved (Tossavainen, 2016: 290). Vargo et al. (2008) refer to a new knowledge and the occurrence of an exchange within and among surrounding systems in this context. Furthermore, knowledge production with the local communities involved is believed to be empowering (Smith et al., 2014).

Co-creation is also seen as a joint value creation through resource integration between the service provider and user (Bagdoniene and Valkauskiene, 2018). The importance of value in this context is highlighted by Vargo et al. (2008), who indicate that ‘value is co-created through the combined efforts of firms, employees, customers, stockholders, government agencies and other entities related to any given exchange but is always determined by the beneficiary, e.g., customer’ (p. 148). Voorberg et al. (2014) point out that co-creation is also related to other concepts such as public participation or community involvement; nevertheless, the concept of co-creation is more specific than the broader concept of participation, which may also refer to passive involvement. For the purposes of this article, ‘co-creation’ refers to the interaction of multiple stakeholders to achieve improved societal outcomes. As found in Han et al.’s (2014) study, multiple stakeholder involvement can enhance the commitment of individuals and associations, funding, trust and positive expectations, as well as creating social innovation.

Concept of hackathon for co-creation of services in the community

Originating from technology communities, hackathons have these days been adopted by a broad range of organisations (Taylor and Clark, 2018), including in the field of social services. By bringing together people with diverse backgrounds, experience and expertise (Pe-Than et al., 2019) in a single location over short periods of time, hackathons support intensive bursts of creativity (Taylor and Clark, 2018). The diverse skills of participants can facilitate innovation and learning due to participants being able to generate and assess ideas from various perspectives (Pe-Than et al., 2019). Therefore, hackathon events can be useful for developing solutions within a community as people experiment with each other from one event to the next (Briscoe and Mulligan, 2014). For the purposes of this article, hackathon provides a solution-focused environment for social service co-creation free from any hierarchical constraints.

Johnson and Robinson (2014) indicate that governments around the world are moving towards the provision of open data to citizens, the private sector and other third parties, which sets the groundwork for a new innovative method of co-creation – the promotion of civic hackathons or social hackathons. The authors of this article consider co-creation a manifestation of social innovation. Social innovation can refer to new products and services that address social needs (Phills et al., 2008) or new processes that make use of social relations to deliver products and services in more efficient ways (Howaldt and Schwarz, 2010). According to Sørensen and Torfing (2011), co-creative (or collaborative) innovation refers to an open innovation process whereby professionals from different organisations, as well as politicians, citizens, private companies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), are integrated into the innovation process, increasing the quality and quantity of services through the wide variety of participants’ innovation assets. Flores et al. (2018) emphasise that hackathons provide means to accelerate innovation.

Estonian context: Moving towards an innovative knowledge-based society

Estonia has had remarkable success in promoting a technology-based information society, and especially with establishing the principles of e-government (Kalvet, 2007). E-governance is a strategic choice for Estonia to improve the competitiveness of the state and increase the well-being of its people. Ninety-nine percent of public services are available to citizens as e-services (Digital Agenda 2020 for Estonia, 2018). The European Commission (2003) has referred to e-government as the use of information and communication technologies in public administration, combined with organisational change and new skills, to improve public services and democratic processes and to strengthen support for public policies. According to the Digital Agenda 2020 for Estonia (2018), the public sector plays an active role in the uptake of innovative solutions and investments in new technologies. It can be said that Estonia considers itself one of the first digital societies that tends to solve its economic and societal issues by integrating information and communication technologies at all levels. Another important phenomenon of Estonian society today is the emphasis on entrepreneurship and especially on the technology-driven start-up scene in its development policies (European Commission, 2018). In this context, entrepreneurship is a societal phenomenon, as it has become a fundamental tool in overcoming the learned dependence of its citizens in a totalitarian regime, encouraging entrepreneurship as a pre-condition of (economically, legally and politically) independent citizenship (Cornell et al., 2007). Start-ups and other entrepreneurship development programmes have taken an important role in the new developments in moving towards an innovative knowledge-based society (Action Plan for the Development of Innovative Start-Ups, 2011).

Hackathon events in Estonia are not only connected to traditional IT topics, but are organised around relevant economic or social issues. The first hackathon events in Estonia were related to information and communication technology (ICT), emphasising tech-based solutions. However, very soon it became clear that the creative method had a potential also in service design and innovation of social services (E-Estonia, 2019). There are several good examples of this, for instance the Ministry of Social Affairs organised three hackathons during 2014–2018 with the aim of developing creative ICT-based projects to increase the quality of life of disabled people in the country based on the example of Garage48. Garage48 is one of the many innovation centres (development hubs) in Estonia that is organising tech-related innovation events (hackathon) and provides pre-incubation and incubation for emerging start-ups, being an effective method how to build up individual ideas to a sustainable business model. This method has been borrowed by actors in social innovation, and the cooperation between the Estonian Ministry of Social Affairs and the Garage48 development hub is an example of this encounter between social innovation and the start-up scene.

Method

Background for the study

The study presented in the current article was conducted as part of the European Union (EU) project Co-creation of Social Service Innovation in Europe (CoSIE) carried out in one region of the country – Võru county. The CoSIE project as an international consortium aims to introduce innovative ways of social service development. The Estonian pilot utilises the effective development method of the start-up scene, combining it with the strong social values of the welfare sector (CoSIE, 2019). Hackathon is one of the core methods of the start-up scene for giving a kick-off to ideas guiding them to pre-incubation, incubation and elevation. Hackathon as a method was developed within the start-up scene. In the current article, the co-creation process from the perspective of hackathon participants is reported.

Võru county is a rural area situated in southern Estonia. Each of its municipalities is spread out across its geography. The population of Võru county comprises 2.7 percent of the total population of Estonia (Statistics Estonia, 2018). Some of the challenges in that region include the increasing percentage of elderly people and disabled people. The proportion of elderly people (over 65 years of age) has increased, amounting to 21.6 percent of the population (compared to 19.3% in the Estonian population); the proportion of disabled people is higher in Võru county than in Estonia on average, forming 21.9 percent (Statistics of Estonian Social Insurance Board 2018), whereas across Estonia the proportion of disabled people is 11.4 percent of the population (Kreitzberg, 2017). This implies an increase in the need for services directed at vulnerable groups such as elderly and disabled people. Considering the context in which municipalities in rural compared to urban areas cannot provide services equally for everyone in the sparsely populated areas, there is a need for alternative solutions and tailor-made services for those user groups whose needs cannot be met with standardised services, for example transportation services, home care for elderly (National Audit Office, 2010). According to Eurostat (2015), Estonia ranked well below the EU average in terms of social protection expenditure per capita. As a result, mobilising community resources that compensate state-financed welfare system is particularly important. In Estonia, social assistance and services, including welfare services for the elderly, are according to the Local Government Organisation Act (1993) the responsibility and organisation of local government. Nevertheless, studies on services in Estonia indicate considerable variations in access to local social services, both in general and when distinguishing between individual services. Certain services are provided almost everywhere, while others are provided less often, particularly in rural areas (Kriisk and Minas, 2017).

Study design

As indicated earlier, in order to explore the process of co-creation, this study pilots hackathon as a method for co-creation of new innovative services for the communities. The traditional ICT hackathon format that was more flexible and therefore suitable for various societal groups was adapted by the authors, whereas communication and language was changed to be more appropriate for local people. Because of these adaptations, the expected participation of a broad cross-section of the community and the aim of the event being to contribute to solving societal problems, the authors of this article called it a social hackathon. A 3-day social hackathon occurred on 5–7 October 2018 in Vastseliina, Võru county, lasting 48 hours. In total, 89 participants registered for the hackathon, forming 10 groups consisting of various stakeholders for the development of new service concepts. Two pre-events were organised in order to engage different stakeholders, clarifying the aim of the social hackathon event and creating a common sense for co-creation. During the social hackathon, teams received relevant support from mentors who were experts in different areas, from service design to IT development, from user involvement to marketing. The event ended with final presentations proposing ideas in relation to their chosen problem – for example an ICT tool for the facilitation of finding jobs they are capable of; the development of an organisational model for a county-level competence centre for dementia sufferers that gathers information about available services and provides support and knowhow for families on how to adapt to this condition, including the concept of a digital diary.

Participants

This study builds on an analysis of data from the hackathon participants and mentors as well as their experiences and perspectives of the method of hackathon for co-creation. In total, 14 middle-aged persons (13 females and 1 male) participated in three focus groups (FG): FG 1 consisted of three representatives – family members of mentally disabled children, other young children and officials from the unemployment office; FG 2 consisted of four representatives – a family member of a person with dementia, a service provider, an expert of rehabilitation services and a municipality social worker; FG 3 consisted of seven representatives – two mentors, a municipality social worker, a service provider, a municipality official, a community leader and a member of a local developmental organisation. Participants were recruited during the hackathon while registering to the hackathon. One of the questions on the registration sheet was: ‘Are you willing to share experience of the co-creation process in the hackathon for the purpose of the study?’ Persons who gave consent were contacted and recruited for the study.

Data collection

The study used a qualitative design for data collection and analysis. According to a systematic review conducted by Voorberg et al. (2014), the qualitative approach predominates when studying co-creation practices. Focus groups for data gathering were selected to enable the participants to elaborate on their experiences of the process of participation of the social hackathon. A qualitative interview guide was developed, covering three main themes: experiences about previous user involvement in the service development process, what co-creation means for them, and cooperation with stakeholders based on social hackathon experience.

Interviews with participants occurred from March through April 2019 by the second and third authors. Based on the participants’ preferences, interviews with practitioners were held in Võru. All interviews were tape-recorded and fully transcribed. The average length of interviews with participants lasted 80 minutes.

Ethics approval was obtained from the Research Ethics Committee from the University of Tartu (No 275/T-6). Participants were informed about the study and subsequently provided voluntary, written consent and were not compensated.

Data analysis

Focus group interviews were subject to thematic analysis applied using principles outlined by Braun and Clarke (2006), consisting of generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, refinement of the themes and naming themes. As the number of participants was reasonably small, transcripts were manually coded using word-processing software. Reliability of the data analysis was enhanced by two researchers examining and reviewing coding themes that emerged from the transcripts.

First, the interviews were read independently by the first and fifth authors to gain an overall understanding of the data, followed by the discovery of the initial codes. After researchers had read the transcripts independently and compiled initial codes, the authors discussed these codes by comparing and refining the codes, then combining them into potential themes. The themes were reviewed again, and the specifics of each theme were further refined, combining codes to develop additional themes. The transcripts were then read again to extract quotes supporting the common themes.

Findings

The findings in the current article reflect three main themes discussed in focus groups – co-creation: then and now; hackathon as the method for co-creation; and hackathon as a safe space for service development. Each theme and coded sub-theme is described in the following sections.

Co-creation: Then and now

While sharing reflections on the topic under discussion, participants reflected on past experiences of engaging users, suggesting a changing paradigm – increased practices of engaging the users in designing and developing services. Past experience was described as non-inclusive practice of users, emanating from the expert-based approach. As in service development, the focus was on the user, thinking of his or her needs without engaging the user in the design and development process. Ideas of the needs of users and trends were sought from the foreign experiences and best practices, as the following quote from a participant of FG 1 demonstrates:

In general, we developed services, which in our opinion, fitted the best to the service user. In this process, we originated from the wishes and standards of Europe, possibilities of information technology, legislation and based on this we assumed that these service developments are comfortable for service users. We did not include the service user in this process.

Participant from FG 3 also referred to the need for different stakeholders’ involvement:

In a daily basis, we work with our colleges and we think pretty much the same way. Participants of hackathon had different backgrounds, for example people from government, IT experts and such. It gives new perspectives, which is needs for the ideas to develop further.

Participants explained that as a result of non-inclusive practice, services in the past were rather appropriate for service providers but not for service users.

The practice of engaging the user today has somewhat changed, although not in accordance with the concept of co-creation. Engaging the user today was described with the words ‘superficial’, ‘limited’ and ‘formal’. One of the participants believed that communication with the users between local governments and ministries was limited, stating that engaging with the users appeared to be rather formalistic instead of inquiries into the actual needs or evaluation of services or new developments. Another participant expressed concern about decisions being made prior to consulting users. She was questioning the real intent to involve users in the process of designing and developing services: ‘First there is a decision, and then they [ministries] ask the opinion. This raises the question of whether there is a sincere interest to learn your opinion [. . .]’ (FG 1). Nevertheless, another participant voiced her opinion that despite the limited practice of engaging the user, there has been a change in this process: ‘There is a development in engaging service users, I cannot say that there is no inclusion, although there is the aspect of seriousness of engaging’ (FG 2). One of the participants from FG 2 had another perspective on this. She reflected on her thoughts related to giving opportunities to be engaged in:

I would say there is the matter of giving opportunities to participate or being engaged in the processes. The reason for this is service users not knowing to be part of the processes. They need to be more informed of this opportunity.

This thought suggests that users themselves are expected to be more active, indicating the bottom-up initiative in engaging. Another participant in the FG did not agree with this kind of expectation in engaging process. She emphasised the role of the local government to be key in the active engagement of users, stating that the bottom-up initiative was the wrong approach. Instead, she pointed out the need to identify those who are users and learn from them: ‘This [development of services] is for users and it is crucial to see and notice them and their opinion.’

Participants’ discussions on and perceptions of co-creation reflect various notions with the emphasis on ‘joint or common’ – common interest, joint contribution and common understanding. Common interest was found to be a force in the process of creating together to move on from generating ideas to implementing those ideas. Engaging in the process can be provided by joint contribution, as noted by one of the participants from FG 2, who shared her idea about this view:

If everyone is giving an input jointly, this means they are engaged in the process and will not militate against the idea. If everyone is contributing to the outcome jointly, there will be no opposition, and common understanding will be formed.

Joint contribution was related to the concept of common understanding, which was brought up in the focus groups throughout the discussions. One of the participants considered common understanding crucial for reaching innovative ideas, as within the process of learning about each other’s perceptions, views on the specific social issue tackled for finding the solution, and different perspectives that are debated before reaching the common understanding. This enables in-depth analysis and these perspectives from this process can lead to unexpected solutions or parts of solutions. In the process of co-creation, perspectives from every stakeholder were deemed relevant. Another participant discussed the value of common understanding in increasing the belief of possible changes, describing the experience of the hackathon, as the following quote indicates:

Some people didn’t believe something would change as we have been talking about the need for changes past ten years. This is why coming together and discussing and finding the common understanding is so significant for people. It is the basis for working towards the changes together, creating new solutions together in this process [co-creation]. (FG 1)

There was one recurrent term throughout the interviews while discussing engagement and co-creation – ‘the process’, as several quotes indicate. Furthermore, one of the participants underscored the importance of people and their relations within the process: ‘People are most important in this process; without people there is no co-creation’ (FG 2). She discussed the importance of coming together and being open to sharing our own perspectives and listening to the perspectives and values of others.

However, while discussing the importance of common understanding, opinions from all stakeholders and people at the centre of the co-creation, several participants pointed out the need to make choices, meaning that some opinions are more important than others, as these quotes indicate: ‘In the process of engaging you have to make choices, whose opinion to consider first, whose voice is more important’ (FG 2); ‘[. . .] It depends on what phase are you involving users’ (FG 1).

Furthermore, participants discussed that in the process of co-creation, the process of engaging must be purposeful and thoughtful. They generally agreed that people are most important within the process of co-creation and that engagement is crucial in this process. Considering the character of ‘co-creation’, the engagement was discussed in relation to the need to transfer to full and equal participation in the service development process from the planning stage to the final evaluations.

Hackathon as the method for co-creation

Hackathon was considered a useful tool for generating solutions rapidly in a collaborative manner, to come together and develop innovative ideas intensively for tackling social issues in their local community, as the following participant from FG 1 indicates: ‘The form of hackathon enables [one] to concentrate on one issue in-depth with a group of people. This kind of intense focus leads to the outcome.’ Other participants from FG 1 used the term ‘fast track to solution’, indicating the possibility of finding a solution to a social problem within a few days, as she pointed out:

[. . .] solution will be found in few days. I see it [the hackathon] like this – you have an idea or part of the idea and just in few days the idea is sort of converted into design of the service.

Participants from the same focus group described the hackathon in a similar way, using the words ‘fast process’, as the members of the team are concentrated on a certain topic, brainstorming about it and finding a solution. Furthermore, participants emphasised that not only does hackathon lay the ground for constructing new solutions, but its value was also seen in a wider perspective for its capacity to generate new ideas. While sharing thoughts on finding solutions, the concept of ‘together’ was noticeable throughout the discussions, for example ‘ideas are constructed together’ (FG 1), ‘together we are working on finding a solution’ (FG 2). In addition, participants emphasised the importance of co-creation as ‘it creates value and increases cooperation culture in community’ (FG 3).

Hackathon creates additional value as it enables new access to new networks as additional resources without extra costs. As one of the participants from FG 3 suggested, ‘It is cheap innovation. I could not get to these people by myself [without the hackathon]. Information has such a great value. Now I know [the] network behind my team members’.

In the context of the hackathon, the principle of equality was another important sub-theme that emerged from the data analysis, which was outlined as an important determinant for enhancing co-creation within the format of hackathon. A participant from FG 1 shared her experience in the hackathon in this regard:

I work in the unemployment office and surely I have some expertise in this field, but in the hackathon, I was one of the members of the team. I was not an official. We were all in equal positions. You forget your background and you share your experiences and thoughts but not from an official-expert stance, but as a team member.

Equal positions were deemed crucial in being non-judgemental of one another’s perspectives. Most importantly, non-hierarchical relations remove the pressure to share opinions openly and think creatively, as this participant from FG 2 stated: ‘There are no roles in the group. Coming to hackathon means you will lose your position of power and instead share your competencies [. . .] This takes off the barriers.’ Another participant referred to the ‘neutral position’ in this context. The principle of equality was mentioned in focus groups with words such as ‘equal partnership’, ‘equal roles’ and ‘equal position’. All these refer to the high importance of the role and skilled coordination of the team in the social hackathon, which enables the creation of a positively supportive, equal and neutral environment for the participants, including the vulnerable persons with their needs.

Co-creating solutions requires different perspectives, as mentioned by the participants. Regarding different perspectives, some participants discussed that at the beginning it may take time to see and understand common concerns from different perspectives, because the hackathon as a method is new, untraditional and intensive – people may feel themselves in an unfamiliar situation. Thus, the new and unfamiliar situation may pose challenges to participants at first. However, participants generally discussed that the hackathon indeed provides a real possibility to start to see and understand common concerns from different perspectives. The value from various perspectives is gained via mutual learning and supportive processes during the hackathon. FG 3 stated, ‘This is [a] learning process [that] is going on here for everyone. Personal growth, personal learning. Participants get group support’. Furthermore, hackathon teams are expected to include multiple stakeholders with their competencies. Different stakeholders have different ‘relations’ and backgrounds from the specific social issue, as this participant expressed: ‘[. . .] In developing social transportation, local government has its own relation to this theme, service users have their own relation [. . .] They all have their experiences that contribute to finding the most effective solution’ (FG 2). Participants from FG 2 emphasised that the collaboration between different institutions among various stakeholders is effective due to different competencies and perspectives.

In general, the hackathon was perceived as an innovative and positive experience. It was seen as a creative and ‘out-of-the-box’ type of an approach, a non-traditional way of thinking. It demonstrated an openness to constructing solutions in a new and creative way. One of the participants from FG 2 was so impressed with the outcome she experienced in the hackathon that she expressed interest in implementing this kind of method in a regular daily working environment.

Hackathon as a safe space for service development

Experiences of co-creation and hackathon were discussed in the context of cooperation between stakeholders. One of the themes from the focus groups was related to creating a safe environment in the community for vulnerable people to voice their opinions. This kind of community was considered the basis for a willingness to participate in various initiatives, including the co-creation of service development. The following quote from FG 2 demonstrates this idea and emphasises the need for collaboration between different stakeholders: ‘If a safe environment is created, vulnerable people are coming out to be part of the community [. . .] Different stakeholders together can create solutions [. . .].’ There were people expressing the idea of the hackathon being a very intense working space. FG 1 participant claimed, ‘We do not bring our [mentally disabled] clients along, as it is mentally very hard. We cannot involve them for the whole day as they cannot cope with it. I represent the client because the client cannot represent him/herself’. An additional theme emerged connected to the topic of a safe environment in the community – distrust between the state and the local government and between local government and people living in the community. Distrust was acknowledged as a major obstacle for co-creation. Furthermore, it decreases the motivation to build for the community, as this quote indicates:

The state doesn’t trust local governments and in turn, the local government does not trust its people. What is needed are resources distributed to the community and [the] trust [of] the community to develop services according to the needs of people [to] create [a] better environment for living. (FG 2)

Another participant from this focus group elaborated on the idea further, citing positive examples of communities designing and developing services and solving issues. However, this requires trust and faith in the people. In FG 3, participants emphasised the importance of new relationships as a driver for innovation: ‘Achieving relations is the biggest innovation here.’

Considering co-creation as a new way of thinking, participants suggested that general understanding of the public sector must shift with this way of thinking. There is a need to re-evaluate the role of the social worker, as this quote points out: ‘[. . .] Furthermore, the focus has shifted to the community. With this shift the role of the social worker has to change to the community worker’ (FG 2). Hackathon was recognised as an innovative and fitting tool for the social worker to search for solutions to the social issues in the community together with the community. Moreover, participants found it to be a sustainable way of working for and with the community – solutions coming from the community, developed and implemented by the community.

Discussion and concluding thoughts

The definition of co-creation in the academic literature includes active involvement of the user. The current study confirms the finding of Han et al. (2014) that the multiple stakeholder involvement, networking and democratic decision-making are important elements leading to social innovations. The links between social innovation and services can be considered from two different angles: one sectoral (social innovation as innovation in services) and the other functional (social innovation as service innovation) (Djellal and Gallouj, 2012). The discussion on the innovation in services is highly relevant for the social work context, which is based on the principles of fairness, equality of treatment and continuity. The social hackathon follows these same principles.

Besides the social hackathon experience, the authors investigated the wider understanding of co-creation as well as where and how it could be used. However, the participants were not able to associate co-creation with other developmental processes outside the social hackathon itself. In order to disseminate co-creation and implement it in the daily practices of different stakeholders, it is important to discuss and make better sense of it with the stakeholders. User involvement and user-centred solutions in the social sector have been discussed for decades, but real-life solutions are rather superficial and formal. Our research took place in the rural area of Estonia, in Võru county. Even in this rural community, the user involvement is an emerging trend rather than a daily norm, but there could be some advantages due to people knowing each other in rural areas compared to the urban ones.

Bryan-Kinns et al. (2018) refer to the understanding of the local context and engaging with communities by listening to the voices within the community. Different stakeholders shared the understanding that the development of public services is still predominantly driven by professionals, but they shared the mind-set that it should be more user oriented. The experience of the social hackathon helped raise understanding of what a co-creation process looks like as well as understanding the value.

In her study of co-creation with stakeholders, Tossavainen (2016) has proposed that ‘engaging multiple stakeholders in simultaneous joint activities, from various organisations with different levels of hierarchy and dissimilar professions, may increase needed diversification through the broadness of the information and experiences, and the amount and quality of the development suggestions’ (p. 279). Social innovation emphasises the building of new relations during its process, and the social hackathon proved to lead to new power patterns as equal positions were deemed crucial by participants in being non-judgemental of one another’s perspectives. Most importantly, non-hierarchical relations take away the pressure to share opinions openly and think creatively. When decision makers, service providers and users are in one team during co-creation (not only at the hackathon weekend but also later during the incubation), changes will occur in their relations during this process and those new relationship patterns are at the core of social innovation. In this way, the hackathon is an effective tool to destroy existing hierarchies, and at the same time give space to new structures and unexpected solutions.

Nevertheless, a hackathon is an inclusive co-creative environment, but this intensive format may not be suitable for everyone. While planning the social hackathon, the involvement of more vulnerable groups must be carefully considered. Hackathons raised questions regarding the format of the co-creation, especially whether end users should be involved during the entire 48-hour session. Based on this study, vulnerable people tend to prefer co-creation methods other than a hackathon, fast-paced management meetings or long political committee meetings. Vulnerable groups were included via information they received about the event from advocacy organisations. They were encouraged to define a relevant challenge of their own in the hackathon or to join any of the teams. Leadership in co-creation means careful engineering of the process, giving space and weight to everyone’s voice. As interviewees pointed out, the hackathons have great potential, but their character is intensive and competitive (following the business-rooted principles), and thus the social hackathon as a tool needs to be flexible, sensitive and humanistic, considering the needs and abilities of vulnerable participants in terms of infrastructure as well as physical and mental support. It could be undertaken by mentors with shared experiences as the participants, accessibility of the venue for those with mobility issues, personal assistants for those with sight and speech impairment. The participants stressed that they gained new contacts and networks in the social hackathon. They met people in senior roles who they would have not otherwise met. Hence, co-creation promotes diversity and greater diversity leads to increased chances of unexpected solutions that are more adjusted to users’ needs.

Co-creation involves joint value creation, but it is also important to capture the values and knowledge created in the social hackathon. Otherwise, if openness, involvement and equal participation end with the social hackathon, then the ideas might not be kept alive and implemented in practice. It is especially important to keep it in mind in case the social hackathon participants are in vulnerable positions, since their willingness to be further involved in implementing the ideas might be lost. In the pilot, the follow-up mentoring is provided for 6 months and the progress is being continuously tracked by the organisers to maintain the sustainability.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This project (Co-creation of Service Innovations in Europe) was funded by the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the grant agreement No. 770492.

ORCID iDs

Karmen Toros

Kadri Kangro

Author biographies

Karmen Toros is Professor of Social Work in School of Governance, Law and Society, Tallinn University. She is actively involved in social work education and training of child protection workers. Her research focuses on child welfare and protection, strengths-perspective in child protection practice and is particularly interested in assessment of child well-being. She has been conducting research on the assessment practices of child protection workers in Estonia with an aim to lay the foundation for creating comprehensive assessment system and effective assessment practice.

Kadri Kangro is a welfare advisor in the Development Centre of Võru County and a doctoral researcher of social work and lecturer in School of Governance, Law and Society, Tallinn University with a background in public health and health management and economics. Her research field is social innovation and public sector innovation, currently researching the effectiveness of co-creation approaches to facilitating innovation of local public services using the example of Võru County, Estonia.

Katri-Liis Lepik is an Associate Professor of management in School of Governance, Law and Society, at Tallinn University. Her research interests focus on social entrepreneurship, public sector innovation and quadruple helix cooperation.

Zsolt Bugarszki is an expert of social policy, an Associate Professor of Social Work in School of Governance, Law and Society, at Tallinn University. He has the relevant experience in leadership of research and development projects including project management in the field of social innovation, sustainability and social entrepreneurship. As the head of Tallinn University’s Social Entrepreneurship MA program, he is developing and running social entrepreneurship and corporate sustainability related courses and curriculum. By using the project-based learning method, he is organizing development and pre-incubation with an emphasis on social innovation.

Ingrid Sindi is a doctoral researcher of social work and lecturer in School of Governance, Law and Society, Tallinn University. Her research focuses on the changing concept of child in Estonian residential care, based on ethnographic research in substitute home.

Koidu Saia is a doctoral researcher of social work and research coordinator in School of Governance, Law and Society, at Tallinn University. Her research interests are related to interprofessional collaboration, young offenders’ rehabilitation and community support in rural areas. Her practical professional experience has been associated with supporting children and families at risks as a social pedagogue and a social worker.

Marju Medar is an Associate Professor of Social Work in School of Governance, Law and Society, at Tallinn University. Her research interests are related to the coping of the population, need for, use and administration of social services, rehabilitation and community support in rural areas.

References

Action Plan for the Development of Innovative Start-Ups (2011) Start-Up Estonia 2011–2013. Tallinn: Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications.

Alves

Fernandes

Raposo

(2016) ‘Value Co-Creation: Concept and Contexts of Application and Study’, Journal of Business Research 69: 1626–33.

Bagdoniene

Valkauskiene

(2018) ‘Working Together: Understanding Value Co-Creation Processes in Professional Service Delivery’, Engineering Economics 29(1): 104–14.

Bovaird

(2007) ‘Beyond Engagement and Participation: User and Community Coproduction of Public Services’, Public Administration Review 67(5): 846–60.

Braun

Clarke

(2006) ‘Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology’, Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101.

Briscoe

Mulligan

(2014) Digital Innovation: The Hackathon Phenomenon. Creativeworks London. Available online at: http://www.creativeworkslondon.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Digital-Innovation-The-Hackathon-Phenomenon1.pdf

Bryan-Kinns

Wang

(2018) ‘Exploring Interactivity and Co-Creation in Rural China’, Interacting with Computers 30(4): 273–92.

Cornell

Jorgensen

Record

Timeche

(2007) ‘Citizen Entrepreneurship: An Underutilized Development Resource’, in Jorgensen

(ed.) Rebuilding Native Nations: Strategies for Governance and Development, pp. 197–222. Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona Press.

CoSIE (2019) ‘Co-Creation of Service Innovation in Europe’. Available online at: https://cosie.turkuamk.fi/cosie/ (accessed 14 June 2019).

10.

Digital Agenda 2020 for Estonia (2018). Tallinn: Ministry of Economic Affairs and Communications.

11.

Djellal

Gallouj

(2012) ‘Social Innovation and Service Innovation’, in Franz

H.W.

Hochgerner

Howaldt

(eds) Challenge Social Innovation: Potentials for Business, Social Entrepreneurship, Welfare and Civil Society, pp. 119–37. Berlin: Springer.

12.

Dubicz

(2012) ‘The Ethic of Care: Recapturing Social Work’s First Voice’, Social Work 57(1): 271–80.

13.

E-Estonia (2019) ‘Digital State Hackathon Connects Estonian IT Companies With Ministries’. Available online at: https://e-estonia.com/digital-state-hackathon/ (accessed 14 June 2019).

14.

European Commission (2003) Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions: The Role of eGovernment for Europe’s Future. Brussels: European Commission.

15.

European Commission (2018) SBA Fact Sheet. Brussels: Internal Market, Industry, Entrepreneurship and SMEs.

16.

Eurostat (2015) ‘Social Protection Statistics’. Available online at: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Social_protection_statistics#Per_capita_expenditure_on_social_protection_and_expenditure_as_percentage_of_GDP (accessed 3 February 2019).

17.

Flores

Golob

Maklin

Herrera

Tucci

Al-Ashaab

Williams

Encinas

Martinez

Zaki

Sosa

Pineda

K.F.

(2018) ‘How Can Hackathons Accelerate Corporate Innovation?’, in Moon

Lee

Park

Kiritsis

Cieminski

von G.

(eds) Advances in Production Management Systems: Production Management for Data-Driven, Intelligent, Collaborative, and Sustainable Manufacturing (IFIP Advances in Information and Communication Technology), pp. 167–75. Cham: Springer.

18.

Greenhalgh

Jackson

Shaw

Janamina

(2016) ‘Achieving Research Impact through Co-Creation in Community-Based Health Services: Literature Review and Case Study’, Millbank Quarterly 94: 392–429.

19.

Gustafsson

Kristensson

Witell

(2012) ‘Customer Co-Creation in Service Innovation: A Matter of Communication?’, Journal of Service Management 23(3): 311–27.

20.

Han

S-.I.

Chung

M-.K.

Park

M-.S.

(2014) ‘Local Stakeholder Involvement and Social Innovation in Korean Co-Operatives: The Cases of Wonju and Ansung Cities’, Community Development Journal 49(2): 327–43.

21.

Howaldt

Schwarz

(2010) Soziale Innovation – Konzepte, Forschungsfelder und Internationale Trends. Trend Study of the International Monitoring Project (IMO). Aachen: IMA/ZLW & IfU, RWTH Aachen University.

22.

Johnson

Robinson

(2014) ‘Civic Hackathons: Innovation, Procurement, or Civic Engagement?’, Review of Policy Research 31(4): 349–57.

23.

Kalvet

(2007) ‘The Estonian Information Society Developments since the 1990s’, Working paper no. 29. Tallinn: Praxis Centre for Policy Studies.

24.

Kreitzberg

(2017) The Number of Disabled Persons, Developments and Proportion in the Population, 2010–2017. Ministry of Social Affairs. Available online at: http://www.tai.ee/images/uudiskirja_Puuetega_inimeste_arv.pdf (accessed 3 February 2019).

25.

Kriisk

Minas

(2017) ‘Social Rights and Spatial Access to Local Social Services: The Role of Structural Conditions in Access to Local Social Services in Estonia’, Social Work and Society 15(1). Available online at: https://www.socwork.net/sws/article/view/503/1007

26.

Kukk

Leppiman

Pohjola

(2014) ‘Designing a Business Service Experience: Customer’s Perspective on Value Co-Creation’, Research in Economics and Business: Central and Eastern Europe 6(1): 51–64.

27.

Local Government Organisation Act (1993) RT I 1993, 37, 558. Available online at: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/en/eli/506112013013/consolide (accessed 18 November 2019).

28.

National Audit Office (2010) Availability of State Services in Counties. Tallinn: Riigikontroll.

29.

Oertzen

A-.S.

Odekerken-Schröder

Brax

S.A.

Mager

(2018) ‘Co-Creating Services – Conceptual Clarification, Forms and Outcomes’, Journal of Service Management 29(4): 641–79.

30.

Osei-Frimpong

Wilson

Lemke

(2016) ‘An Examination of the Influence of ICT on Patient Co-Creation in Healthcare Service Delivery at the Micro Level’, AMA Winter Educators’ Proceedings 27: 45–6.

31.

Pe-Than

Nolte

Filippova

Bird

Scallen

Herbsleb

J.D.

(2019) ‘Designing Corporate Hackathons with a Purpose: The Future of Software Development’, IEEE Software 36(1): 15–22.

32.

Petri

Jacob

(2016) ‘The Customer as Enabler of Value (Co)-Creation in the Solution Business’, Industrial Marketing Management 56: 63–72.

33.

Phills

J.A.

Deiglmeier

Miller

D.T.

(2008) ‘Rediscovering Social Innovation’, Stanford Social Innovation Review 6(4): 34–43.

34.

Ramaswamy

Ozcan

(2018) ‘What Is Co-Creation? An Interactional Creation Framework and Its Implications for Value Creation’, Journal of Business Research 84: 196–205.

35.

Sembada

(2018) ‘The Two Sides of Empowering Consumers to Co-Design Innovations’, Journal of Services Marketing 32(1): 8–18.

36.

Slettebø

(2013) ‘Partnership with Parents of Children in Care: A Study of Collective User Participation in Child Protection Services’, British Journal of Social Work 43: 579–95.

37.

Smith

Fressoli

Thomas

(2014) ‘Grassroots Innovation Movements: Challenges and Contributions’, Journal of Cleaner Production 63: 114–24.

38.

Sørensen

Torfing

(2011) ‘Enhancing Collaborative Innovation in the Public Sector’, Administration and Society 43(8): 842–68.

39.

Statistics Estonia (2018) ‘Population’. Available online at: http://pub.stat.ee/px-web.2001/Database/Rahvastik/01Rahvastikunaitajad_ja_koosseis/04Rahvaarv_ja_rahvastiku_koosseis/04Rahvaarv_ja_rahvastiku_koosseis.asp (accessed 6 February 2019).

40.

Statistics of Estonian Social Insurance Board (2018) Data on Disabled People. Tallinn: Estonian Social Insurance Board.

41.

Taylor

Clark

(2018) ‘Everybody’s Hacking: Participation and the Mainstreaming of Hackathons’, in CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Montréal, QC, Canada, 21–26 April, Paper no. 172. New York: ACM.

42.

Tossavainen

P.J.

(2016) ‘Co-Create with Stakeholders: Action Research Approach in Service Development’, Action Research 15(3): 276–93.

43.

Vargo

S.L.

Maglio

P.P.

Akaka

M.A.

(2008) ‘On Value and Value Co-Creation: A Service Systems and Service Logic Perspective’, European Management Journal 26: 145–52.

44.

Vega-Vazquez

Revilla-Camacho

M.Á.

Cossío-Silva

F.J.

(2015) ‘Can the Customer’s Value Co-Creation Behaviour Be Measured? Validating a Measurement Scale Based on the Customer’s Perspective’, Gestion 2000 2(32): 33–47.

45.

Verleye

(2015) ‘The Co-Creation Experience from the Customer Perspective: Its Measurement and Determinants’, Journal of Service Management 26(2): 321–42.

46.

Voorberg

W.H.

Bekkers

V.J.J.M.

Tummers

L.G.

(2014) ‘A Systematic Review of Co-Creation and Co-Production: Embarking on the Social Innovation Journey’, Public Management Review 17(9): 1333–57.

47.

Yang

Y-.T.

Iqbal

Chen

Y-.M.

Chang