{"id":481,"date":"2014-11-12T16:09:01","date_gmt":"2014-11-12T16:09:01","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.iriss.org.uk\/keepingitpersonal\/?page_id=481"},"modified":"2016-01-22T12:10:55","modified_gmt":"2016-01-22T12:10:55","slug":"approach","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/blogs.iriss.org.uk\/keepingitpersonal\/approach\/","title":{"rendered":"Approach: co-production & improvement methodologies"},"content":{"rendered":"

This project seeks to align health and social care perspectives by focusing upon person-centred practice. Therefore this project is exploring the application of co-productive approaches (commonly referred to in the social care sector), a<\/a>nd improvement methodologies (commonly referred to in the health sector). This <\/a>section describes how co-production and improvement methodologies have been interpreted for this project.<\/p>\n

\n

Co-productive methodologies<\/h2>\n

Definitions of co-production are not in short supply. The concept emerged in the 1970s when Nobel prize winner for economics, Elinor Ostrom, and her team at Indiana University, used the term \u2018co-production\u2019 in a series of studies about the Chicago police.\u00a0In the case studies she highlighted the weaknesses of large, centralised public service delivery, observing how police officers had abandoned close involvement with citizens on the beat for policing at a distance in patrol cars. The word ‘co-production\u2019 was coined to express what she viewed as the lack of close involvement or connection on behalf of the police (Boyle and Harris, 2009). Ostrom\u2019s team defined co-production as the \u2018process through which inputs used to produce a good or service are contributed by individuals who are not \u2018in\u2019 the same organisation\u2019 (Boyle and Harris, 2009, p13). This implies that no one organisation or institution is responsible for delivering services; services are developed and delivered by professionals and citizens.<\/p>\n

Later in 2000, the word \u2018co-production\u2019 was used by Edgar Cahn to explain his Time Dollar and Time Banking systems. He claimed that money was the reason human capacities were being devalued. These capacities include: caring for each other; coming to each other\u2019s rescue; rearing infants; protecting the frail and vulnerable; standing up for what is right; opposing what is wrong; coming together to meet agreement; and acting as guardians of what we feel is precious. In his opinion, co-production redefines the connection between the world of market and non-market, and sets the terms on which the two economies need to relate to create a world that rewards altruism and care as much as it rewards competitiveness, aggression and acquisition (Cahn, 2004).<\/p>\n

Boyle and Harris (2009) assert that co-production is central to growing the \u2018core economy\u2019 and that it encourages equal partnership as opposed to just \u2018service user involvement\u2019 or \u2018citizen engagement\u2019. The \u2018core economy\u2019 was a term introduced by an economist Nevan Goodwin, who used the analogy of a computer operating system on which systems work. The \u2018core economy\u2019 or operating system comprises family, neighbourhood, community and civil society (Boyle and Harris, 2009). This marries with the sentiments of Bovaird and Loeffler\u2019s (2013) definition of co-production as \u2018…professionals and citizens making better use of each other\u2019s assets, resources and contributions to achieve better outcomes or improved efficiency\u2019 (p23). The professional expertise of the professional is partnered with the lived experience of the person. These partnerships are based on four values (Horne and Shirley, 2009):<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Everyone has something to contribute. Citizens are empowered to contribute their own resources (time, will power, expertise and effort) and give them greater control over public resources to achieve outcomes. This is often referred to as an assets-based approach.<\/li>\n
  2. Reciprocity is essential (two-way relationships where risk and power is shared). In essence, services \u2018do with\u2019 and not \u2018to\u2019 the people that use them.<\/li>\n
  3. Social relationships matter.<\/li>\n
  4. Social contributions (rather than financial contributions) are encouraged.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    In essence, co-productive working places more emphasis on \u2018relational\u2019 rather than \u2018transactional\u2019 approaches to delivery (Needham and Carr, 2009, p3).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Levels of co-production<\/h3>\n

    Needham and Carr (2009) identify three levels of co-production:<\/p>\n

    [table id=1 \/]<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    Types of co-production<\/h3>\n

    The Co-production Star (Governance International, 2014) identifies a range of service activities which can be included under the co-production umbrella. These are: co-commission, co-assess, co-design and co-deliver.<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    \"Screen<\/a><\/p>\n

    [table id=2 \/]<\/p>\n

     <\/p>\n

    \n

    Improvement methodology<\/h2>\n

    It\u2019s worth discerning the differences between improvement science and improvement methodology. Improvement science is the study of methods that make improvements effective. According to the Health Foundation (20011, p6) \u2018Improvement science focuses on systematically and rigorously exploring \u2018what works\u2019 to improve quality in healthcare and the best ways to measure and disseminate this to ensure positive change\u2019. It maximises the learning from improvement and brings research and practice closer together. Improvement methodology on the other hand, is the framework for the delivery of change that is planned, evidence-based and follows established methods (NHS, 2012). There are proven methodologies to support different kinds of change, but improvement methodology incorporates large-scale change across systems, and not just process improvement. Proven methodologies include PDSA (Plan, Do, Study, Act), Lean and Six Sigma.<\/p>\n

    The Improvement Guide (2009) identifies five fundamental principles of improvement: (i) knowing why you need to improve (ii) having a feedback mechanism to identify if improvement is happening (iii) developing an effective change that will result in improvement (iv) testing a change before implementation (v) and implementation.<\/p>\n

    The guide goes on to describe The Model of Improvement, which comprises three questions and the PDSA cycle as a framework for applying the five fundamental principles.<\/p>\n

    Three questions:<\/p>\n