ISSN 1822–8402 EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES. 2014. No. 8

CONSTRUCTING PUBLIC SERVICES – EUROPEAN APPROACH

Jari Stenvall
University of Tampere, School of Management

Kalevantie 4 33104 Tampere, Finland
jari.stenvall@uta.fi

Ilpo Laitinen
Municipality of Helsinki, Finland

ilpo.laitinen@hel.fi

Klaus af Ursin
University of Tampere, School of Management

Kalevantie 4 33104 Tampere, Finland
klaus.af.ursin@uta.fi

Petri Virtanen
University of Tampere, School of Management

Kalevantie 4 33104 Tampere, Finland
petri.virtanen@uta.fi

Jari Kaivo-oja
University of Turku, Finland

jari.kaivooja@gmail.com

http://dx.doi.org/10.5755/j01.eis.0.8.6954

Our research aim is to study how the new service-oriented approach is socially constructed in the practices of public
services and which role identity formulation plays in the construction process. From the service science point of view, we
present three different generations of service thinking. The differences between these generations lie in the nature of services
and in the ways in which the service system should be developed, and what kind of learning processes each service reform
contains. Third generation services are constantly developing interactive processes where learning is based on local knowledge
and experiences. They follow the logic of open systems theory. Our second task is to present the conceptual framework for
understanding public services as knowledge creation processes. Our empirical task is to do a qualitative analysis based on a
sample of interviews among social and health service managers and experts in four European cities (Barcelona, Den Bosch,
Glasgow, Greater London area). The focus is in the importance of identity: how it develops in the service reform processes.
The key results in qualitative analysis show that interviewees stress identity being one of the key elements developing in
new process-like services where professional approach is integrated with knowledge of clients and communities. Street level
bureaucrats´ open approach in connection with active role of service users results to unique solutions in service delivery.
Shared identity developed in a reform process constitutes a key element in this kind of public services.

Keywords: Construction, Public services, service integration, identity.

Introduction

In many countries one of the most significant trends of change
concerning the public sector has involved services and their
concept (Hartley & Skletcher 2008). This has been described
as transfer from production-oriented to service-oriented
approach (Osborne 2009). It has not been just a question
of developing the services but in a wider sense of how, for
example, cities and regions organize their operations with
respect to civil society.

There are several underlying reasons for the changes in
services. Straitened economic circumstances together with
technological progress have offered novel ways to realize

services. The needs and expectations of citizens and service
users have changed. Users have, for instance, higher levels of
education and they demand personal service (e.g. Pasquier &
Villeneuve 2012). This has created a new kind of operating
environment for learning and intelligent public organizations
(Virtanen, Stenvall & Kinder 2014). The question is no longer
what the service users – such as pupils and their parents – can
learn from the public sector, but also what public organisations
can learn from them, or how public organizations can utilize
intelligent solutions to create conditions for personal learning
among the service users. This kind of services can be called as

ISSN 1822–8402 EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES. 2014. No. 8

third generation services (Harisalo 2013; Laitinen & Stenvall
2014).

In this article, we discuss the social construction of the
third generation public services and the way in which this is
influenced by the theoretical concept of public services and
the theory-in-use (see Brunsson & Sahlin-Andersson 2000;
Argyris & Schön 1974). Our research aim is to study how
the new service-oriented approach is socially constructed in
the practices of public services and what role does identity
formulation play in the construction process.

Our hypothesis is that knowledge is an essential element
in the construction of the identity of third generation services.
Several studies have concentrated on issues related to how
organization sciences, practices, knowledge, and constructing
are linked together (Gergen 1994; Gergen & Gergen 2004;
Damargo-Borges & Rasera 2013).

Our article is a qualitative study with a special focus on
the third generation services implemented in social and health
care systems. The research material consists of interviews
from cities and regions in several different countries, such as
Barcelona, Glasgow, Den Bosch, and the Greater London area.
The material has been gathered from service development
projects in which the aim has been to shift over to services
with the customer in the centre.

Three Generations of Service Science

In our view, service thinking can be divided into three
generations and they can be analysed and defined using the
framework presented by Risto Harisalo (cf. Harisalo 2013,
51). The differences between these generations lie not only
in concepts of the nature of services but also in the ways in
which the service system should be developed, and what kind
of learning processes each reform contains.

The first generation of service science concentrated
primarily on single public services and service sectors. The
objective was to understand the laws governing certain
services, such as design services or health care and social
services. Services were organised identifying the customers’
needs, but largely with a production-oriented approach.

From the perspective of the public sector, the first
generation services included the view that each service
constitutes an independent unit or a sector that must be
examined from its internal conditions and circumstances. In
these models, each sector has its own professionally trained
staff. Professionalism is strong in many public service
sectors – a central feature of the first generation service
science is hierarchy. Services are organised with a production-
oriented approach, top-down. Legally supported professional
conditions define how services are produced and for whom.
The laws governing services are context-dependent, and the
operating logic of one service sector – such as health care
services – cannot be transplanted to another sector.

The second generation service science aimed at
comprehensive organising, arranging services in order to
solve each customer´s problems. This carries the notion that
sectorally organised service systems operate with too narrow
views in solving the problems their customers have.
The second generation service science regards service models
as solutions to the customers’ problems (e.g. Rummer &
Branche 1990). Often these solutions are even tailor-made
to the customer. This means that the connections between

products and services are understood (Normann 1995).
Therefore, a service can, for instance, include consultation
and a solution based on technology.

Similarly, second generation services emphasize
operational integration. This means than customers – or
clients – might be provided with services being processes
collaboratively produced by several groups of professionals.
This directs focus to the information and skills necessary for
integrating functionally separated services. Operating across
organisational borders acts as a central catalyst for learning
(Kinder 2000).The second generation service science stresses
a comprehensive approach to services, because several
factors are simultaneously affecting the ability to produce
them appropriately. Therefore, the organisation of the service
system focuses on issues such as structures, culture, processes,
and cooperation.

Services of the third generation are based on the view
that services shall be organised according to what is
outlined for open systemic thinking (Chesbrough 2003;
Prahalad & Ramaswamy 2004). From this perspective,
services are constantly developing interactive processes,
where reformation and learning are based on information,
experience, and in-process learning, regarding the realization
of services as well as the planning of service processes. In
third generation services it is, thus, possible to apply the
methods of learning by experience and learning by doing (Cf.
e.g. Argyris 1977; Kolb 1984).

Third generation services employ such concepts as co-
production and co-creation. The former refers to services
being implemented and their contents defined together with
the customer (Bovarid 2007; Needman 2008; Pestoff &
Brandsen 2010). Co-creation, on the other hand, refers to
planning the services together with the customers (Chathoth
et al. 2013; Grönroos & Voima 2011; Vargo et al. 2008).
Today, many services are developed in the spirit of open
innovation paradigm. Motivational issues are key issues for
the development of new services for service innovations.
User-driven innovations are needed more and more (Meyer
& Schwager 2007, Santonen, Kaivo-oja, & Antikainen 2011).
Technological solutions are also a part of third generation
services. Especially ubiquitous technologies are having big
impacts on the development of third generation services
(Kristensson et al. 2008, Kaivo-oja 2013). The use of
technology enables, for instance, the transfer of information,
the involvement of customers into services, and the production
of interactive information.

Constructing, knowledge, and identity in public
services – conceptual framework

For nearly 20 years there has been burgeoning recognition
among organizational researches that organization identity
provides a promising framework for understanding
organizations (Blader et al. 2012). The discussion on identity
is important in organizations that have people with several
kinds of professional backgrounds. The challenge is to create
a shared identity in the new organization environment (Blader
et al. 2012). From this point of view, the constructing of third
generation services is promising in new social and health care
organizations aiming at integrating the activities of several
professional groups.

It is not clear what the concept of identity means in
practice (see for instance Asford & Fred 1989; Blader et all

ISSN 1822–8402 EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES. 2014. No. 8

2012; Shultz et al 2013; Ravazi & Shultz 2006. Kodein &
Greenwoord 2014). There is no consensus about an exact
definition of the concept of identity in the literature, nor is
there any precise agreement on the dimensions of identity. In
other words, identity is an elastic concept.

From the construction perspective, identity is considered
here representing the entity´s central, enduring and distinctive
properties (Jian 2011, 49). The concept of organizational
identity emphasizes autonomy, boundaries and collective
resources as basic characteristics of given entity. Identity
also contains the idea of something possessing special
characteristics while being a part of a highly general category,
like a service system. (Brunsson and Shalin-Andersson 2000,
59; Alvesson et al. 2008.)

In the identity process, we try to find answers to the
following questions. Firstly, we have to ask who we are
(Run & Golden 2011). Secondly, we ask why are we
different compared with other organizations. In this context,
discussions on identity are about insider-outsider aspects and
about inclusion and exclusion as well (Gioia et al. 2010).
In construction process – like that of construction of third
generation services – people try to recognize unique aspects
of given organization and its practices.

In the construction process people create identity by
defining boundaries (Santos and Eisenhardt 2006). The
boundary theory addresses how individuals and collectives
form and shape boundaries in order to categorize and simplify
stimuli. Boundaries create perimeters for a given domain, such
as “service” and “system” (Ashforth et al., 2000 Knapp et al.
2013). As advanced by organizational scholars, the boundary
theory focuses on, for instance, how people and organizations
enact boundaries.

The constructing of organizational practices is a
comprehensive process. It is obvious that reforming public
services links identity, working practices and knowledge
strongly together. As new structures and working arrangements
are created, employees are normally required to form new
kinds of activities. Such changes rearrange the existing order
modifying the ways in which these are differentiated from
practices in other organizations and systems. These processes
define new boundaries altering the ways in which people
relate to each other (Paulsen 2003).

Constructionism emphasizes the contextual value of
knowledge production and its practices. It claims the need
of involvement and collaboration of those who will use
the knowledge (Camargo-Borges & Rosera 2013, 2–3).
According to this, it is possible to make the hypothesis that
the construction of third generation services is a localized
and contextual process. The constructionist theory is very
sensitive to changes generating new forms of practices,
identity and knowledge.

Data and method

The research material has been collected in the cities of
Barcelona, Den Bosch, Glasgow, and the Greater London
area. The choice of the target cities was affected by reform-
oriented thinking, with respect to their integrated social and
health services and the related new service models.

In the cities mentioned above, numerous people were
interviewed, both individually and in groups; all in all, there
were 100 informants. Each personal interview lasted an

hour, while the group interviews took 90 minutes each. The
interviews were conducted in a semi-structured manner. All
site visits and interviews were conducted between May and
August 2012. In each city, the interviewees represented two
distinct groups of professionals, the senior management of
social and health services and, secondly, leading experts. In the
autumn 2012, after the interviews, discussions on the subject
were arranged through detailed questions and supplementary
material delivered via e-mail. The interviews were transcribed
and analysed in the autumn in 2012.

As a part of the methodological triangulation, literary
material in each target city was used along with interviews
and observations. The researchers also endeavoured to pay
attention to what was not included in the documentation
and other written material, or what people did not want to
include in it (Laitinen 2009). This documentation was used as
complementary material.

The documentation gathered in the target cities included
plans, reports, reviews, assessments, and studies of services
and their integration. A need for developing models of
operation was identified as the common premise for the cities
chosen for the comparison – their aim has been to reduce
bureaucracy, increase effectiveness, and make the production
of value in collaboration with the customer more efficient
than before.

Constructionist methodology has affected how we have
analysed our data. Empirical method is not understood
here as conveying the correct knowledge about reality,
but as a phenomenon defined and studied with a help of
specific theory and its methods. The results of a systematic
observation of reality are a priori circumscribed by the theory
used. The constructionist invitation is to comprehend how
adopted aspects of the world are socially structured, thereby
opening up space for a variety of alternative intelligibilities.
Methodologically, the challenge is not so much in giving the
correct interpretation of the phenomenon as in broadening
the possibilities of understanding (see for instance Camargo-
Borges and Rosera 2013, 2–3; McNamee and Hosking, 2012).

Identity – we do it differently

On the basis of the data, it is obvious that people
implementing third generation services stress the importance
of identity creation. The interviewees used the terms “new”
and “old”, the “previous services” and the “existing services”.
They emphasized the uniqueness of new services. They
compare their services to other public services. Ways of
thinking among the interviewees reveal that they consider
themselves as primary movers in public services. The
interviewees also find third generation services as a sort of
revolution in the public service system.

So, if we were to ask people using our services what
the difference is, they would say it’s the fact that they
tend to have one care coordinator. They no longer have
multiple assessments. They may still have some specialist
assessments, but we’ve significantly reduced that.
From the perspective of knowledge, the ideology – we do

it differently – is connected with learning from experience
(see Schön 1983). As an interviewee put it: “We discovered it
was actually something quite unusual going on”.

Actually, on the basis of experience, many interviewees
have seen that the world has changed and that is why it is

ISSN 1822–8402 EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES. 2014. No. 8

very important to work differently. This does not just concern
practices but the mind-set of services as well. This is the
way of thinking that Argyris (1978) has called double loop
learning.

Identity – we do it differently – does not concern the
practices of public services only. Many of the interviewees see
that change processes towards third generation services are
very different compared with change processes in traditional
service systems. They argue that third generation services
should be developed with a bottom-up approach instead of
top-down.

Bottom-up processes create new kind of knowledge for
public services. Knowledge becomes contextual, depending on
actors, communities, working practices etc. In our data, many
interviewees emphasize knowledge they have gained during
the developing process. This is in accordance with postmodern
organization philosophy (see e.g. Gergen 1994) stressing local
context and interaction processes in knowledge creation.

Professional identity and working practices

There are strong connections between professional
identity, boundaries, and organizational identity. The
possessions of professions are typically based on knowledge,
which creates autonomy and boundaries in relations to other
professions. Some interviewees consider that one purpose of
the construction of services is to create conditions for using
professional knowledge:

But one of the problems with this model is that people feel
quite afraid of doing this bit in the middle, because they
are thinking “ I’m not a social worker, if something goes
wrong, it’s me…”, so they are quite frightened of doing
this work.”
Hence, it seems on the basis of the data that the working

culture is changing heavily in third generation services.
This might weaken the boundaries within organizations but
perhaps produce boundaries between organizations. The
viewpoint is that professional workers produce knowledge
together within organizations. In this respect, there may be
differences between organizations.

Because we’ve got the same values we say to staff we
don’t want people fighting over service users – if they
need a service, deliver it and we’ll worry about who will
pay as we’ll sort it out, if you can’t. And over the years,
less come to us because that culture is getting sorted out
at the Head of Service Level. Team Managers sometimes
still have a bit of that’s mine and that’s yours, but that’s
breaking down.
This is well-being and the different disciplines, care, and
well-being, we bring them together to have that holistic
view.
Cure, care and welfare were very isolated structures in

services and we thought it was more cost efficient and better
for the care as a whole that they start working together more.

Professional identities may change within organizations
in the third generation services. This is the outcome of
collaborative working practices. The boundaries between
professions are not so clear any more.

Single interviewees took up the consideration that
professional identity should be based on the ideology that
people are good in finding solutions together for practical
problems or phenomena. This means that the contextual

knowledge of services is especially important for professional
identity.

We created some roles which were very much like a
health & social care worker. In mental health, instead of
having social workers, community psychiatric nurses,
and occupational therapists we created mental health
practitioners.
And the social workers also know a lot of things outside
nursing, caring, health things.
Now we are trying to build a network to assist this group
of families.
To sum it up, professional identity, organizational identity,

and contextual aspects go hand in hand in third generation
services. The construction of services is based on traditional
professional knowledge, a framework of collaboration, and
localized knowledge.

Clients and communities

Clients and communities are important in third service
generation. The identity of services is based on an open
system approach. The system is open not only for professional
knowledge but for the viewpoints coming from service
users and the community as well. The construction process
of services is happening through the interaction of different
kinds of actors. Many interviewees argued that it is just open
approach that gives uniqueness to the services they deliver.

Services are also constructed employing the idea that
service users are in the centre. The purpose is to create a holistic
approach for handling service users’ problems. This requires a
multi-professional approach. The service users’ problems are
unique and none of the professions have sufficient knowledge
by themselves. Many interviewees emphasize again that the
central role of service users is what makes third generation
services different from the “old” services.

New kinds of practices have been developed to be a part of
the third generation service ideology. These have strengthened
the position of service-users in these systems. Especially co-
productive practices have given an active role for service-
users. These kinds of practices have an effect on professional
identity. Co-production also means that professional servants
understand that they do not have all knowledge of the situation
of service-users.

But the client is in the centre. He has to confirm the
possibilities, he is the owner of his own problem and
information, and he is the boss of who is going to care for
him in the end. The director. But the supporting carers are
the inner circle for the clients, but you also have an outer
circle. Like an onion – peeling the onion.
We try to put the client in the centre and then the
professionals around them.
In many cases, knowledge accumulated in the community

(and its networks) is crucial for services. There are
connections between knowledge of service users and of the
community. There is knowledge concerning service users in
the communities. For this reason, professional workers need
the ability to work in collaboration with the people around the
service-users:

People are living – they are not just patients. They are part
of the neighbourhood, a family, and you have to look at all
those different things.
Contextual knowledge is meaningful in third generation

services. This makes services not only unique but useful for

ISSN 1822–8402 EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES. 2014. No. 8

the community. Some interviewees paid attention to local
conditions which have affected constructing of services. As
open systems, services might influence their environment by
creating local identity.

Identity has grown. And we sometimes referred to it as
being an island. The area looks inward a bit, it doesn’t
relate particularly well to its neighbours
Third generation services are constructed by localized

identities and knowledge. It is possible that a local service
system is very different compared to service systems in other
areas. In the local context, the ideology of third generation
services decreases the boundaries between servants, service-
users, and the community.

Conclusions

In this article we have analysed how the construction
of third generation services is connected with organization
identity. Public service organizations try to create a unique
mind-set for their activities. This creates an identity that is
different compared with previous services.

Knowledge is an essential element in the constructing of
identity. The following forms of knowledge are extremely
important in the construction of third generation services:
(1) holistic multi-professional knowledge, (2) knowledge of
the service-users, and (3) community based knowledge. The
purpose is to create conditions in which there are prerequisites
for the utilization and production of professional and
individualized service-user knowledge.

It seems that constructing third generation services is
produced by contextual knowledge. Due to this, the local –
learning by doing – process is meaningful in the construction
of services. Typically the process decreases boundaries
between local actors and produces a common framework for
working with service users.

Local and contextual identity means that it is difficult
to produce generalized detailed understanding of the
characteristics of third generation services. The reality is
relative. Services are constructed uniquely depending on the
conditions. The philosophy of third generation services is
based on the way of thinking of post-modern organization.

Hence we argue that it is, for instance, possible to produce
knowledge on which kind of identity and contextual ideology
are affected in service development. It is important to
concentrate on the issue of what kind of local and contextual
factors construct the developing process of services.

Our main point is that third generation services should be
analysed differently. The mainstream in the literature on public
services has top-down perspective. Many researchers have
concentrated on the issue of how a general approach – like
ideology of public governance – is affecting public services
(Osborne 2006; Osborne et al. 2013; Virtanen, Stenvall and
Kinder 2014). Local and contextual learning processes are
important in third generation services. The construction
of identity and knowledge is an ongoing process in third
generation services produced through local, human interaction.

According to our data, local actors – like street level
bureaucrats – make the essential choices concerning public
service policies (see Lipsky 1980; Tuurnas, Stenvall et al.
2014). For this reason, we should analyse third generation
services using the bottom-up perspective. We should also pay
attention to how local and contextual solutions are constructed
in the general approach of services in policy context.

References

Alvesson, M., Ascraft, K., Thomas, R. (2008). Identity
Matters: Reflections on the Construction of Identity
Scholarship in Organization Studies. Organization, 15(1),
5–28. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1350508407084426

Argyris, C. (1977). Double Loop Learning in Organisations,
Harvard Business Review, September-October.

Argyris, C., Schön, D. (1974). Theory in practice: Increasing
professional effectiveness. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ashfort, B., Fred, M (1989). Social Identity Theory and the
Organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1),
20–29.

Ashforth, B. E., Kreiner, G. E., Fugate, M. (2000). All in a
Day’s Work: Boundaries and Micro Role Transitions.
Academy of Management Review, 25, 472–491.

Blader, S., Wrzesniewski, A., Bartel, C. (2012). Identity
and Modern Organization. An Invitation. In Bartel,
C. Blader, S., Wrzesniewski, A., Identity and Modern
Organization. New Jersey: Lawrence Elbraum Associates.

Bovaird, T. (2007). Beyond Engagement and Participation –
User and Community Co-production of Public Services.
Public Administration Review, 67(5), 846–860. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2007.00773.x

Brunsson, N., Sahlin-Andersson, K (2000). Constructing
Organizations: The Example of Public Sector Reform.
Organization Studies, 21(4), 721–746. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0170840600214003

Camargo-Borges, C., Rasera, E (2013). Co-Creation as
Resources of Change Social Constructionism in the
Context of Organization. Sage. http://sgo.sagepub.com/
content/3/2/2158244013487540

Chathoth, P., Altinay, L., Harrington, R.J., Okumus, F.,
Chan, E.S.W. (2013). Co-production Versus Co-
creation: A Process Based Continuum in the Hotel
Service Context. International Journal of Hospitality
Management, 32, 11–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
ijhm.2012.03.009

Chesbrough, H. (2003). Open Innovation: The New
Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology.
Boston, Massachusetts: Harvard Business School Press.

Gioia, D., Orice, K., Hamilton, A., Thomas, J. (2010)
Hamilton, Forging an Identity: An Insider-outsider Study
of Processes Involved in the Formation of Organizational
Identity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 55(1), 1–46.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2189/asqu.2010.55.1.1

Gergen, K. J., Gergen, M. (2004). Social Construction:
Entering the Dialogue. Chagrin Falls, OH: Taos Institute
Press.

Gergen, K. J. (1994). Realities and Relationships.
Cambridge, MA. Harvard University Press.

Grönroos, C., Voima, P. (2011). Making Sense of Value and
Value Co-Creation in Service Logic. Helsinki: Hanken
School of Economics.

Hartley, J., Sklecher, C. (2008). The Agenda for Public
Service Improvement. In Hartley, J. – Donaldson, C.,
Skelcher, C., Wallace, M. (ed.), Managing to Improve
Public Services. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 3–24.

Jian, Guowei (2011). Articulating circumstance, identity and
practice: toward a discursive framework of organizational

ISSN 1822–8402 EUROPEAN INTEGRATION STUDIES. 2014. No. 8

changing. Organization. 18(1), 45–64. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/1350508410373672

Kaivo-oja, Jari (2013) New Service Design Thinking in the
Ubiquitous Media. Touchpoint, 5(3), 34–40.

Knapp, S., Smith, P., Kreiner, G., Sundramurthy, C.,
Parton, S. (2013). Managing Boundaries through Identity
Work. The Role of Individual and Organizational Identity
Tactics. Family Business Review. 26(4), 333–345. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/0894486512474036

Kodein, F., Greenwood, R (2014). Responding to
institutional complexity: The role of identity.
Organzation Studies, 35(1), 7–39. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0170840613495333

Kolb D, (1984) Experiential Learning: Experience as the
Source of Learning and Development.

Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Kristensson, P., Matthing, J., Johansson, N. (2008).

Key Strategies for the Successful Involvement of
Customers in the Co-creation of New Technology-
based Services. International Journal of Service
Industry Management 19(4), 474–491. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1108/09564230810891914

Needham, C. (2008). Realising the Potential of Co-
production: Negotiating Improvements in Public
Services. Journal of Social Policy and Society 7(2), 221–
31. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1474746407004174

Laitinen, I., Stenvall, J. (2014). Together We Stand, Divided
We Fall – A Comparative Study of Change Management
in Health and Social Services. UK: Springler.

Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level Bureaucracy. Dilemmas of
individual in Public Service. United States: Russel Sage
Foundation.

Meyer, C., Schwager, A., (2007). Understanding Customer
Experience. Harvard Business Review. February 2007,
117–126.

McNamee, S., Hosking, D. M. (2012). Research and Social
Change. A Relational Constructionist Approach. New
York, NY: Routledge.

Normann, R. (1995). Service Management. Strategy and
Leadership in Service Business. New York: John Wiley
& Sons.

Osborne, S. (2009). Delivering Public Services. Time for a
New Theory? Public Management Review, 12(1), 1–10.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14719030903495232

Osborne, S. (2006). The New Public Governance? Public
Management Review, 8(3), 377–387. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/14719030600853022

Osborne, S., Radnon, Z., Nasi, G. (2013). A New Theory
for Public Service Management? Towards a (Public)
Service-dominant Approach. The American Review of
Public Administration, 43(2), 135–158. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1177/0275074012466935

Pasquier, M., Villeneuve, J-P. (2012). Marketing
Management and Communication in the Public Sector.
Oxon: Routledge.

Paulsen, N. (2003). “Who are we now?”: Group identity,
boundaries, and the (re)organizing process. In
Paulsen, N., Hernes, T. (Ed.), Managing Boundaries
in Organizations: Multiple Perspectives Basingstoke,
Hampshire, U.K .: Palgrave Macmillan, 14–31. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1057/9780230512559

Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V. (2004). The Future of
Competition. Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers.
Boston: Harvard Business School Press.

Ran, B., Golden, T (2011). Who Are We? The Social
Construction of Organizational Identity Through Sense-
Exchanging. Administration & Society. 43(3), 417–445.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0095399711412727

Ravazi, C., Schulz, M (2006). Responding to Organizational
Identity Threats: Exploring the Role of Organizational
Culture. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 433–
458. http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/AMJ.2006.21794663

Roth, S., Kaivo-oja, J., Hirschmann, T. (2013). Smart
regions: Two cases of crowdsourcing for regional
development. International Journal of Entrepreneurship
and Small Business, 20(3), 272–285. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1504/IJESB.2013.056890

Rummler, G., Brache A. B. (1990). Improving Performance:
How to Manage the White Space on the Organiszation
Chart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Santonen, T., Kaivo-oja, J., Antikainen, M. (2011). National
open innovation system (NOIS): Defining a solid reward
model for NOIS. International Journal for Innovation
and Regional Development (IJIRD). 3(1), 12–25. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1504/IJIRD.2011.038060

Santos, S., Eisenhard, K. (2005). Organizational Boundaries
and Theories of Organization, 16(5), 491–508.

Schultz, M., Maguire, S., Langley, A., Tsoukas, H (2013).
Constructing Identity in and around Organizations.
Administrative Science Quarterly, June 3, 2013.

Schön, D.A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner, NY: Basic
Books.

Tuurnas, S., Stenvall, J., Rannisto, P-H. (2014). The Impact
of Co-production on Frontline Accountability — The
Case of Conciliation Service. University of Tampere:
School of Management.

Vargo, S., Maglio, P., Akaka M. (2008). On Value and
Value Co-creation: Service Systems and Service Logic
Perspective. European Management Journal, 26, 145–
152. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.emj.2008.04.003

Virtanen, P., Stenvall, J., Kinder, T. (2014). The Evolution
of Public Services from Co-production to Co-creation
and Beyond – New Public Management’s Unfinished
Trajectory? University of Tampere and University of
Edinburgh.

The article has been reviewed.
Received in April, 2014; accepted in June, 2014.