In the realm of public services, the integration of digital technologies and co-production—termed ‘digital co-production’—holds transformative potential. Yet, a comprehensive understanding of how such integration affects service outcomes remains elusive, presenting a critical knowledge gap with practical implications. Addressing this gap, our study systematically examines the complex interplay between digital technologies and co-production. Through a thematic analysis of literature, we construct a heuristic framework that distinguishes four scenarios: incremental assistance, radical transformation, innovative substitution, and latent co-production. By shifting the analytical focus from the enabling or constraining role of technology to a configurational perspective, this framework supports practitioners in identifying the specific trade-offs between technological complexity and interaction intensity in their service design.
AbbasiharoftehMBroekelTMewesL (2024) The role of geographic distance and technological complexity in U.S. interregional co-patenting over almost two centuries. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space56(7): 2003–2022. https://doi.org/10.1177/0308518x241255525
2.
AlamSL (2021) Many hands make light work: towards a framework of digital co-production to co-creation on social platforms. Information Technology & People34(3): 1087–1118. https://doi.org/10.1108/itp-05-2019-0231
3.
AlexandrovAWAlexandrovAV (2020) Innovations in prehospital stroke management utilizing mobile stroke units. Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology26(2): 506–512. https://doi.org/10.1212/CON.0000000000000850
4.
AllenBTamindaelLEBickertonSH, et al. (2020) Does citizen coproduction lead to better urban services in smart cities projects? An empirical study on e-participation in a mobile big data platform. Government Information Quarterly37(1): 101412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101412
5.
AngelisJParryGMacintyreM (2012) Discretion and complexity in customer focused environments. European Management Journal30(5): 466–472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2012.05.005
6.
AnsellCGashA (2018) Collaborative platforms as a governance strategy. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory28(1): 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mux030
7.
AnsellCMiuraS (2020) Can the power of platforms be harnessed for governance?Public Administration98(1): 261–276. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12636
8.
AnttiroikoAV (2021) Digital urban planning platforms: the interplay of digital and local embeddedness in urban planning. International Journal of E-Planning Research10(3): 35–49. https://doi.org/10.4018/ijepr.20210701.oa3
BannisterFConnollyR (2014) ICT, public values and transformative government: a framework and programme for research. Government Information Quarterly31(1): 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2013.06.002
11.
BarbosaAFPozzebonMDinizEH (2013) Rethinking e‐government performance assessment from a citizen perspective. Public Administration91(3): 744–762. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.2012.02095.x
12.
BeresfordPFarrMHickeyG, et al. (2021) Co-production in emergency responses and the ‘new normal’: An afterword for Volume 1. COVID-19 and co-production in health and social care research, policy, and practice. Policy Press, 155–164.
13.
BertotJCJaegerPTGrimesJM (2010) Using ICTs to create a culture of transparency: e-government and social media as openness and anti-corruption tools for societies. Government Information Quarterly27(3): 264–271. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2010.03.001
14.
BorrásSEdlerJ (2020) The roles of the state in the governance of socio-technical systems’ transformation. Research Policy49(5): 103971. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2020.103971
15.
BovairdT (2007) Beyond engagement and participation: user and community coproduction of public services. Public Administration Review67(5): 846–860. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x
16.
BovairdTLoefflerE (2012) From engagement to co-production: the contribution of users and communities to outcomes and public value. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations23(4): 1119–1138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9309-6
17.
BridgeC (2012) Citizen centric service in the Australian department of human services: the department’s experience in engaging the community in co‐design of government service delivery and developments in e-government services. Australian Journal of Public Administration71(2): 167–177. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8500.2012.00763.x
CarrerasBNBorsottiV (2025) How can we change the system? Understanding and addressing redesign inertia in digital public services. In: Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 2025 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
21.
CarrollNConboyK (2020) Normalising the “new normal”: changing tech-driven work practices under pandemic time pressure. International Journal of Information Management55: 102186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijinfomgt.2020.102186
22.
CastañerXOliveiraN (2020) Collaboration, coordination, and cooperation among organizations: establishing the distinctive meanings of these terms through a systematic literature review. Journal of Management46(6): 965–1001. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206320901565
23.
CasulaMLeonardiCZancanaroM (2022) How does digital technology impact on the co-production of local services? Evidence from a childcare experience. Public Money & Management42(2): 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2020.1728066
24.
Chamorro-PadialJCozzoECalleja-LópezA (2024) Decidim.viz: a data dashboard prototype for a digital democracy platform. SoftwareX25: 101600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.softx.2023.101600
25.
ChatfieldATReddickCG (2018) All hands on deck to tweet# sandy: networked governance of citizen coproduction in turbulent times. Government Information Quarterly35(2): 259–272.
26.
ChengS (2024) Big change: web 3.0 era. In: Web 3.0: Concept, Content and Context. Springer Nature Singapore, pp. 1–29.
27.
CicatielloLDe SimoneED’UvaM, et al. (2023) Coproduction and satisfaction with online schooling during the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from European countries. Public Management Review25(3): 637–656. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1990591
28.
ClarkBYBrudneyJLJangSG (2013) Coproduction of government services and the new information technology: investigating the distributional biases. Public Administration Review73(5): 687–701. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12092
29.
ClarkeA (2020) Digital government units: what are they, and what do they mean for digital era public management renewal?International Public Management Journal23(3): 358–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2019.1686447
30.
CliftonJDíaz FuentesDLlamosas GarcíaG (2020) ICT-enabled co-production of public services: barriers and enablers. A Systematic Review. Information Polity25(1): 25–48. https://doi.org/10.3233/ip-190122
31.
CordellaAPalettiA (2019) Government as a platform, orchestration, and public value creation: the Italian case. Government Information Quarterly36(4): 101409. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.101409
32.
CuiTOsborneSP (2022) Unpacking value destruction at the intersection between public and private value. Public Administration101: 1207–1226. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12850
33.
DePuyW (2023) Seeing like a smartphone: the co-production of landscape-scale and rights-based conservation. World Development164: 106181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2022.106181
34.
DíazPAedoI (2023) Technology-mediated citizen participation in emergency management: balancing social capital and efficacy. In: Paper Presented at the 19th IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT).
35.
DistelBLindgrenI (2023) A matter of perspective: conceptualizing the role of citizens in E-government based on value positions. Government Information Quarterly40(4): 101837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101837
36.
DunleavyPMargettsHBastowS, et al. (2006) New Public Management is dead—Long live digital-era governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory16(3): 467–494.
37.
DurandAZijlstraTHamersmaM, et al. (2023) “Who can I ask for help?”: mechanisms behind digital inequality in public transport. Cities137: 104335. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2023.104335
38.
EllulJ (2021) The Technological Society. Vintage.
39.
EmersonK (2022) On theory and theory building in public administration. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance5: 3–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvab032
40.
EngenMFranssonMQuistJ, et al. (2021) Continuing the development of the public service logic: a study of value co-destruction in public services. Public Management Review23(6): 886–905. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2020.1720354
41.
EversAEwertB (2021) Understanding co-production as a social innovation. In: The Palgrave Handbook of co-production of Public Services and Outcomes, pp. 133–153.
42.
EvilsS (2018) The dark side of co-creation and co-production. In: BrandsenTSteenTVerschuereB (eds) Co-production and co-creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. Routledge, pp. 284–293.
43.
FlackeJHoefslootFIPfefferK (2025) Inclusive Digital Planning – Co-designing a collaborative mapping tool to support the planning of accessible public space for all. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems121: 102310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compenvurbsys.2025.102310
44.
FledderusJBrandsenTHoninghM (2014) Restoring trust through the co-production of public services: a theoretical elaboration. Public Management Review16(3): 424–443. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2013.848920
45.
FountainJE (2004) Building the Virtual State: Information Technology and Institutional Change. Rowman & Littlefield.
46.
FrandellAFeeneyM (2022) Cybersecurity threats in local government: a sociotechnical perspective. The American Review of Public Administration52: 558–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740221125432
47.
FuchsCHofkirchnerWSchafranekM, et al. (2010) Theoretical foundations of the web: cognition, communication, and co-operation. Towards an understanding of Web 1.0, 2.0, 3.0. Future Internet2(1): 41–59. https://doi.org/10.3390/fi2010041
48.
Gil-GarciaJRHelbigNOjoA (2014) Being smart: emerging technologies and innovation in the public sector. Government Information Quarterly31: I1–I8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2014.09.001
49.
Gillman-WellsCCSankarTKVadodariaS (2021) COVID-19 reducing the risks: telemedicine is the new norm for surgical consultations and communications. Aesthetic Plastic Surgery45(1): 343–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00266-020-01907-8
50.
GonçalvesJEIoannouIVermaT (2024) No one-size-fits-all: Multi-actor perspectives on public participation and digital participatory platforms. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences382(2285): 20240111. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2024.0111
HeeksR (2005) Implementing and managing eGovernment. In: Implementing and Managing eGovernment, pp. 1–304.
53.
HenshawMJCMorcosMSSiemieniuchC, et al. (2011) Identification of induced complexity in product service system enterprises. Journal of Enterprise Transformation1(4): 269–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/19488289.2011.622600
54.
HomburgVMoodyR (2021) “@ Government There’s a pothole in my street!”: Canadian citizens’ adoption choices of social media use in citizen‐government relations. Canadian Public Administration64(4): 631–656. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12436
55.
HuangBYuJ (2019) Leading digital technologies for coproduction: the case of “visit once” administrative service reform in Zhejiang Province, China. Journal of Chinese Political Science24(3): 513–532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11366-019-09627-w
56.
HughesMOverneyCKamraA, et al. (2025) Voice to vision: enhancing civic decision-making through Co-Designed data infrastructure. arXiv:2505.14853.
57.
KhanAKrishnanS (2017) Social media enabled e-participation: review and agenda for future research. e-Service Journal10(2): 45–75. https://doi.org/10.2979/eservicej.10.2.03
58.
KingSCotterillS (2007) Transformational government? The role of information technology in delivering citizen-centric local public services. Local Government Studies33(3): 333–354. https://doi.org/10.1080/03003930701289430
59.
KirkliesP-CNeumannOHohensinnL (2024) Promoting digital equality in co-production: the role of platform design. Government Information Quarterly41(1): 101903. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101903
60.
KotokSKrystEL (2017) Digital technology: a double-edged sword for a school principal in rural Pennsylvania. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership20(4): 3–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458916685748
61.
LarssonKKSkjølsvikT (2023) Making sense of the digital co-production of welfare services: using digital technology to simplify or tailor the co-production of services. Public Management Review25(6): 1169–1186. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.2010402
62.
Lee-GeillerSLeeTD (2019) Using government websites to enhance democratic E-governance: a conceptual model for evaluation. Government Information Quarterly36(2): 208–225. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2019.01.003
63.
LeiteHHodgkinsonIR (2021) Telemedicine co‐design and value co‐creation in public health care. Australian Journal of Public Administration80(2): 300–323. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8500.12473
64.
LemberV (2018) The increasing role of digital technologies in co-production and co-creation. In: BrandsenTSteenTVerschuereB (eds) Co-production and co-creation: Engaging Citizens in Public Services. Routledge, pp. 115–127.
65.
LemberVBrandsenTTõnuristP (2019) The potential impacts of digital technologies on co-production and co-creation. Public Management Review21(11): 1665–1686. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619807
LindersD (2012) From e-government to we-government: defining a typology for citizen coproduction in the age of social media. Government Information Quarterly29(4): 446–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2012.06.003
68.
LindqvistKWestrupU (2020) Non-voluntary service interaction from a service logic perspective: children and value co-creation. Public Management Review22(12): 1781–1798. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1648698
69.
LoefflerE (2015) Co-production of public services and outcomes. In: Public Management and Governance. Routledge, pp. 319–336.
70.
MadsenCØLindgrenIMelinU (2022) The accidental caseworker–How digital self-service influences citizens' administrative burden. Government Information Quarterly39(1): 101653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101653
MargettsHDunleavyP (2013) The second wave of digital-era governance: a quasi-paradigm for government on the Web. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A371: 1987. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2012.0382
73.
MarianiIMortatiMRizzoF (2023) Strengthening e-Participation through design thinking. Relevance for better digital public services . In: Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 24th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research.
74.
McMullinC (2021) Challenging the necessity of New Public Governance: Co‐production by third sector organizations under different models of public management. Public Administration99(1): 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12672
75.
McNuttK (2014) Public engagement in the Web 2.0 era: social collaborative technologies in a public sector context. Canadian Public Administration57(1): 49–70. https://doi.org/10.1111/capa.12058
76.
MeijerA (2011) Networked coproduction of public services in virtual communities: from a government‐centric to a community approach to public service support. Public Administration Review71(4): 598–607. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2011.02391.x
77.
MeijerA (2012) Co-production in an information age: individual and community engagement supported by new media. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations23: 1156–1172. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9311-z
MelinUMadsenCØLarssonKK (2024) Five bureaucratic roles in the age of digital transformation – insights from Scandinavian public organizations. In: Paper Presented at the Electronic Government.
80.
MetzlerIÅmH (2022) How the governance of and through digital contact tracing technologies shapes geographies of power. Policy & Politics50(2): 181–198. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321x16420096592965
MichaelKLoveHAWajcmanJ (2017) Speaking out against socially destructive technologies: Norbert Wiener and the call for ethical engagement [Guest Editorial]. IEEE Technology and Society Magazine36(2): 13–26. https://doi.org/10.1109/mts.2017.2705779
83.
MillerSMKeiserLR (2021) Representative bureaucracy and attitudes toward automated decision making. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory31(1): 150–165. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muaa019
84.
MoonMJ (2018) Evolution of co-production in the information age: crowdsourcing as a model of web-based co-production in Korea. Policy and Society37(3): 294–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2017.1376475
85.
MuhhinaK (2024) ICT-based co-production and democracy: enacting space, people, and authority in polycentric sites of governance in Estonia. Government Information Quarterly41(1): 101905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2023.101905
86.
MüllerAPRLerusseASteenT, et al. (2023) What motivates users to report service‐related issues? A study on coproduction in a smart public service. Public Administration. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12946
87.
NeumannOSchottC (2023) Behavioral effects of public service motivation among citizens: testing the case of digital co-production. International Public Management Journal26(2): 175–198. https://doi.org/10.1080/10967494.2021.1937413
88.
NieuwenhuizenWMeijerA (2021) ICT-based co-production: a public values perspective. In: LoefflerEBovairdT (eds) The Palgrave Handbook of co-production of Public Services and Outcomes. Palgrave Macmillan, pp. 577–594.
89.
OsborneSPRadnorZStrokoschK (2016) Co-production and the co-creation of value in public services: a suitable case for treatment?Public Management Review18(5): 639–653. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1111927
90.
OssewaardeM (2019) Digital transformation and the renewal of social theory: unpacking the new fraudulent myths and misplaced metaphors. Technological Forecasting and Social Change146: 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2019.05.007
OudshoornNPinchT (eds) (2005) How Users Matter: The co-construction of Users and Technology. MIT Press.
93.
PageMJMcKenzieJEBossuytPM, et al. (2020) The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ372: n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
94.
PalumboRManeshMF (2023) Travelling along the public service co-production road: a bibliometric analysis and interpretive review. Public Management Review25(7): 1348–1384. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.2015222
95.
PalumboRMannaR (2018) What if things go wrong in co-producing health services? Exploring the implementation problems of health care co-production. Policy and Society37(3): 368–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2018.1411872
96.
PelorossoRZingoniARukoS, et al. (2024) Map4Accessibility project, an inclusive and participated planning of accessible cities: overview and first results. In: Paper Presented at the Innovation in Urban and Regional Planning.
97.
PengH (2025) Spontaneous public value Co-Creation in open professional topic-based digital spaces: a multicase study of French public professionals’ open digital collaboration. Public Administration and Development45(3): 242–254. https://doi.org/10.1002/pad.2101
PestoffV (2009) Towards a paradigm of democratic participation: citizen participation and co‐production of personal social services in Sweden. Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics80(2): 197–224. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8292.2009.00384.x
100.
PestoffV (2012) Co-production and third sector social services in Europe: some concepts and evidence. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations23: 1102–1118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9308-7
101.
PestoffV (2018) Co-production and Public Service Management: Citizenship, Governance and Public Services Management. Routledge.
102.
PolzerTGoncharenkoG (2022) The UK COVID‐19 app: the failed co‐production of a digital public service. Financial Accountability and Management38(2): 281–298. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12307
103.
RadtkeIHoevensNBrandsenT, et al. (2023) Assessing the quality of digital coproduction: an interdisciplinary model. Administrative Sciences13(3): 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci13030069
104.
RanerupAHenriksenHZ (2022) Digital discretion: unpacking human and technological agency in automated decision making in Sweden’s social services. Social Science Computer Review40(2): 445–461. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439320980434
105.
ReddickCGChatfieldATJaramilloPA (2015) Public opinion on National Security Agency surveillance programs: a multi-method approach. Government Information Quarterly32(2): 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2015.01.003
106.
RiccucciNMVan RyzinGG (2017) Representative bureaucracy: a lever to enhance social equity, coproduction, and democracy. Public Administration Review77(1): 21–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12649
107.
RisteskiABogdanoskiMStoilkovskiM, et al. (2014) Cyber security issues of telecommunication infrastructure. In: Cyber Security and Resiliency Policy Framework. IOS Press, pp. 18–35.
108.
RossJ (2018) Casting a line: digital co‐production, hospitality and mobilities in cultural heritage settings. Curator: The Museum Journal61(4): 575–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/cura.12280
109.
RydenHHAndradeLD (2023) The hidden costs of digital self-service: administrative burden, vulnerability and the role of interpersonal aid in Norwegian and Brazilian welfare services. In: Paper Presented at the Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Theory and Practice of Electronic Governance. Belo Horizonte.
110.
RydénHHHofmannSVerneG (2023) The self-serving citizen as a Co-producer in the digital public service delivery. In: Paper Presented at the Electronic Government: 22Nd IFIP WG 8.5 International Conference, EGOV 2023, Budapest, Hungary, September 5–7, 2023, Proceedings.
111.
SangerMB (2004) The Welfare Marketplace: Privatization and Welfare Reform. Rowman & Littlefield.
112.
SatorrasMRuiz-MallénIMonterdeA, et al. (2020) Co-production of urban climate planning: insights from the Barcelona Climate Plan. Cities106: 102887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2020.102887
113.
SiciliaMSancinoANabatchiT, et al. (2019) Facilitating co-production in public services: management implications from a systematic literature review. Public Money & Management39(4): 233–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2019.1592904
114.
SimonHA (1991) The architecture of complexity. In: KlirGJ (ed) Facets of Systems Science. Springer, pp. 457–476.
115.
SimonofskiASnoeckMVanderoseB, et al. (2017) Reexamining E-participation: systematic literature review on citizen participation in E-government service delivery. In: AMCIS.
116.
SinghK (1997) The impact of technological complexity and interfirm cooperation on business survival. Academy of Management Journal40(2): 339–367. https://doi.org/10.2307/256886
117.
SjöbergL (2002) Attitudes toward technology and risk: going beyond what is immediately given. Policy Sciences35(4): 379–400. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1021354900928
118.
SossJ (2000) Unwanted Claims: The Politics of Participation in the US Welfare System. University of Michigan Press.
119.
Soto-AcostaP (2020) COVID-19 pandemic: shifting digital transformation to a high-speed gear. Information Systems Management37(4): 260–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10580530.2020.1814461
SurvaL (2023) Maintaining the ideals of co-production during rapid digitalisation: a comparative case study of digital restorative services in Estonia, Finland, Ireland and Portugal. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations34: 693–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-022-00502-6
122.
TanEMüllerAPR (2023) Paths to citizens-controlled coproduction: the use of blockchain technology in digital coproduction. Public Management Review. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2023.2218388
123.
TaniGCimattiB (2008) Technological complexity: a support to management decisions for product engineering and manufacturing. In: 2008 IEEE International Conference on Industrial Engineering and Engineering Management. IEEE, pp. 6–11.
124.
TerribileFAcutisMAgrilloA, et al. (2024) The LANDSUPPORT geospatial decision support system (S-DSS) vision: operational tools to implement sustainability policies in land planning and management. Land Degradation & Development35(2): 813–834. https://doi.org/10.1002/ldr.4954
125.
TiglaoNCCNgACLTacderasMAY, et al. (2023) Crowdsourcing, digital co-production and collaborative governance for modernizing local public transport services: the exemplar of General Santos City, Philippines. Research in Transportation Economics100: 101328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.retrec.2023.101328
126.
TrischlerJWestman TrischlerJ (2022) Design for experience–a public service design approach in the age of digitalization. Public Management Review24(8): 1251–1270. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1899272
127.
UlnicaneIKnightWLeachT, et al. (2021) Framing governance for a contested emerging technology: insights from AI policy. Policy and Society40(2): 158–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/14494035.2020.1855800
128.
Van EijkCSteenT (2016) Why engage in co-production of public services? Mixing theory and empirical evidence. International Review of Administrative Sciences82(1): 28–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020852314566007
129.
VianoCAvanzoSCeruttiM, et al. (2022) Blockchain tools for socio-economic interactions in local communities. Policy and Society41(3): 373–385. https://doi.org/10.1093/polsoc/puac007
130.
VianoCTsardanidisGDoratoL, et al. (2023) Living labs for civic technologies: a case study. Community infrastructuring for a volunteer firefighting service. Frontiers in Public Health11: 1189226. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1189226
131.
VranićSGaliziaAParodiA, et al. (2024) Citizens4Climate - a dashboard to support citizen science activities for climate action. In: Paper Presented at the 2024 IEEE 20th International Conference on e-Science (e-Science).
132.
WebsterCWRLeleuxC (2018) Smart governance: opportunities for technologically-mediated citizen co-production. Information Polity23(1): 95–110. https://doi.org/10.3233/ip-170065
133.
WenzelRVan QuaquebekeN (2018) The double-edged sword of big data in organizational and management research: a review of opportunities and risks. Organizational Research Methods21(3): 548–591. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428117718627
134.
WilliamsBNKangSCJohnsonJ (2016) (Co)-contamination as the dark side of co-production: public value failures in co-production processes. Public Management Review18(5): 692–717. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2015.1111660
WuLWRouyerEWangCY (2022) Value co-creation or value co-destruction: Co-production and its double-sided effect. International Journal of Bank Marketing40(4): 842–864. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijbm-10-2021-0459
137.
XuCKTangT (2020) Closing the gap or widening the divide: the impacts of technology‐enabled coproduction on equity in public service delivery. Public Administration Review80(6): 962–975. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13222
138.
YoungMM (2022) The impact of technological innovation on service delivery: social media and smartphone integration in a 311 system. Public Management Review24(6): 926–950. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1877794
139.
ZellnerMLMasseyDLaboyM, et al. (2025) Enhancing digital twin technology with community-led, science-driven participatory modeling: a case in green infrastructure planning. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science53(1): 23998083251323671.
140.
ZouYZhaoW (2022) Neighbourhood governance during the COVID-19 lockdown in Hangzhou: coproduction based on digital technologies. Public Management Review24(12): 1914–1932. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1945666
