From Fragmented Criteria to a Structured Decision Support Mode: Designing a DEX-Based DSS for Assessing Organizational Readiness for Co-Creation

Abstract

Co-creation emphasizes the active involvement of stakeholders in the design and delivery of public services. Despite its potential benefits, many public organizations struggle to implement co-creation because they are unclear about their readiness. To address this gap, this study develops a decision support system (DSS) to assess an organization’s readiness for co-creation in public administration. This study applies a design science research methodology to develop a structured assessment model. Through an in-depth content analysis of academic papers, 81 criteria were identified that represent drivers and barriers to co-creation. These criteria were hierarchically organized into categories, subcategories and aggregated attributes to create a decision model using the Decision EXpert (DEX) multi-criteria decision method. The resulting DSS allows decision makers to assess readiness based on binary inputs (“No”/“Yes”) at the basic level, which are then aggregated by utility functions to obtain the final readiness score. By providing a transparent, evidence-based and replicable approach, this model contributes to both theory and practice: it consolidates the fragmented readiness factors into a structured framework and supports agile governance by guiding strategic planning and the allocation of organizational resources to co-creation initiatives. This model was validated against synthetic test cases to demonstrate its applicability and potential value for public organizations seeking to better understand and improve their readiness and resilience for effective co-creation.

1. Introduction

In the last decade, co-creation and co-production (both terms are often used interchangeably [1]) have received considerable attention in both academia and practice [2,3,4] in response to the financial crisis in 2008 and the realization that conventional policy making can no longer effectively address economic, social and environmental challenges [5]. The financial crisis and its associated period of budget austerity have ensured that co-creation is used as a means of reducing costs [6]. In addition, the COVID-19 crisis has shown that such turbulent times, characterized by surprising, contradictory, unpredictable and uncertain events, are increasingly disrupting our societies and challenging the public sector [7]. To overcome these obstacles, public organizations must engage in collaborative processes that leverage the knowledge, skills and resources of diverse stakeholders.

The concept of co-creation has therefore been recognized by the academic community [1,8,9] as well as by international political actors such as the EU and the OECD [10,11,12,13] as the most promising way to find solutions to the most challenging issues and “wicked” problems [14]. This raises the question of whether public sector managers can apply the concept of co-creation to organizations that they control and that are difficult to manage or lead [15]. Furthermore, numerous studies show that barriers to the implementation of co-creation are often related to specific characteristics of the public sector, such as rigid bureaucratic models and low organizational flexibility, which have a negative impact on the implementation of co-creation [16,17,18]. These findings build on existing evidence on how administrative traditions, policies and institutional cultures limit the flexibility of public organizations to implement co-creation [19,20,21,22,23].

Research in this area focuses mainly on innovative ways of delivering public services, with the key question being the readiness of public organizations for co-creation. In this study, organizational readiness is defined as the ability of an organization to adopt, implement and sustain co-creation initiatives effectively. Assessing organizational readiness is a multi-criteria decision problem that requires a structured and systematic approach. Building on the research findings of [24], we identify additional drivers and barriers to co-creation and operationalize them in a multi-criteria decision model to assess an organization’s readiness for the co-creation of public services. Among the many multi-criteria decision methods developed in decision theory [25], we select a method to effectively structure these factors effectively for operational assessment. This paper contributes to theory by consolidating the fragmented readiness factors into a coherent framework, as well as to practice by providing a decision support tool that supports strategic planning and organizational resources allocation, thereby promoting agile governance and enhancing organizational resilience in public administration.

Our model fills a gap in the existing literature [24] by incorporating drivers and barriers related to digital transformation, which have received increasing attention through digital visions [26] and strategies [27]. In contrast to many traditional co-creation studies, where the role of digitalization in co-production is often overlooked [28], digital applications offer a quick and low-effort way to collaborate with public agencies [29], helping to deliver services when time and resources are scarce. This is in line with previous findings from [30,31], where ICT-enabled co-creation was recognized as an important tool to improve the quality and effectiveness of public services. Shared digital platforms and co-creation tools offer concrete opportunities for effective collaboration between stakeholders [32], even under difficult conditions such as COVID-19 [33].

The main research question is the following: how can recent knowledge about the drivers and barriers of co-creation be systematically integrated and operationalized into a rule-based, hierarchical decision making model for assessing organizational readiness in public administration?

We address this research question through an in-depth content analysis and by building a multi-criteria decision model using the Decision EXpert (DEX) multi-criteria decision method developed by [34].

The rest of this article is structured as follows: Section 2 provides a brief theoretical background on the concepts used (co-creation and multi-criteria decision making). In Section 3, we present the methodology based on two methods: (1) content analysis of the Web of Science (WoS) papers, and (2) presentation of the framework used to develop the decision model, based on the multi-criteria decision making process. In the Section 4, we present the step-by-step development of the model based on the previously presented framework. Section 5 summarizes the main contributions of this study, discusses its limitations and points to directions for future research.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Concept of Co-Creation

The concept of co-creation was originally developed in the private sector and has its origins in business and marketing research, where it refers to consumers who can contribute to product development. It has since evolved in the public sector, driven by the government’s needs to improve the responsiveness of services and meet individual and local needs [35,36]. This development of co-creation is closely related to the general shift in public administration away from the principles of bureaucratic governance and New Public Management. Contemporary governance approaches emphasize a networked, cross-sectoral perspective in response to the complexity of modern public challenges, where a variety of stakeholders should be involved in solving public problems. These approaches emphasize not only efficiency and effectiveness, but also democratic legitimacy, inclusivity and adaptability. While the government retains a central role as a guarantor of public value, citizens, businesses and non-profit organizations are increasingly recognized as active contributors to solving public problems [37,38]. Ref. [39] argues that effective administrative and public services depend on successful innovation, i.e., developing better ways to meet customer needs, solve problems and utilize resources and technologies. Innovation is sometimes seen as an unnecessary luxury or additional burden, when it should be seen as a key activity to (1) improve the responsiveness of services to local and individual needs, (2) keep pace with public needs and expectations, (3) contain costs and increase the efficiency of public services and (4) improve public service outcomes. The report by [40] states that innovation in the public sector will be central to meeting the economic and societal challenges of the 21st century. To promote innovation in public administration, clear objectives, freedom to experiment and a mix of skills from different stakeholders are important [41]. Learning and collaboration are also important sources of knowledge, as they stimulate creativity and innovation [42]. In the dictionary [43], the word “innovative” is explained as “relating to the (substantial) improvement, fulfillment, introduction of something new”, but it should also be added that these new ideas must work [39] and/or that the new things must be useful [44]. For ease of understanding, we will therefore use the interpretation of [45], whose authors argue that innovation is a deliberate and proactive process involving the generation, practical adoption and dissemination of new and creative ideas aimed at creating qualitative change in a given context. Public administration needs to become innovative as it faces increasing economic, environmental and social challenges, as well as citizen demand [46,47,48]. The growing interest in public innovation also has an impact on the public sector’s strategy to promote the development, implementation and dissemination of innovative solutions. Collaborative innovation is one option, as it represents an alternative approach to innovation that is particularly suited to the public sector. The public sector is committed to creating public value, whereby both public and private actors (including service users and citizens) can contribute to the creation of public value and are likely to be motivated to participate in their efforts. The exchange of different experiences, ideas and opinions can disrupt established practices and their cognitive and normative foundations, triggering transformative learning processes while creating a shared responsibility for new, bold solutions [49]. Modern public organizations must therefore become part of a dynamic innovation ecosystem to co-create value with citizens, government, policy makers and other public and private organizations and institutions [50]. Due to the involvement of citizens in the development of new products or services, where they act as a source of innovation to improve the value of the new product or service, collaborative innovation can also be understood or referred to as co-creation [51]. Co-creation also overlaps with several similar concepts, e.g., co-planning, co-management, co-design and co-production [14], but the most difficult distinction is that between co-creation and co-production [8]. It can be observed in the literature that the concept of co-creation is often used synonymously or interchangeably with the concept of co-production [1,52], which could lead to an over-extension of the concept. This evolving conceptual landscape is also influenced by the rapid development of digital technologies that are reshaping the way public services are co-created.

Digital technologies are transforming public administration by enabling new forms of co-creation and co-production in public services [53,54]. Tools such as online platforms, e-participation systems and collaborative software environments facilitate real-time interaction, support co-creation and enable the integration of citizen input into service delivery and policy making [55,56]. These digital tools have the potential to foster innovation, improve service quality and contribute to the creation of public value [54,57]. However, digital technologies do not always have a positive impact on co-creation and can sometimes bypass direct interaction with citizens [58]. Furthermore, the implementation of co-creation in digital public services faces challenges, including a gap between theoretical frameworks and practical implementation [59]. To fully understand and utilize digital co-creation in public administration, it is recommended to integrate multiple theoretical perspectives and examine the full cycle of public services [53,60]. This digital transformation further complicates the distinction between co-creation and co-production as evolving technologies reshape the way actors interact and create value.

There are also authors who dispute the similarity between the two concepts. Ref. [61] argues that co-production assumes a linear process where public service organization dominates, whereas in co-creation, the relationship between actors is dynamic and interactive, and value is created at the point of interaction. Similarly, Ref. [62] differentiates co-production and co-creation based on four characteristics, namely scope, actors, power relation and outcomes.

Even though co-production and co-creation are hardly distinguishable, we will use the differentiation of [14], which defines co-production as “an interactive process in which providers and users of public services use their different resources and skills in production and delivery”. On the other hand, co-creation was defined as “a process in which two or more public and private actors attempt to solve a shared problem, challenge or task through the constructive exchange of different types of knowledge, resources, competencies and ideas that improve the production of public value in the form of visions, plans, policies, strategies, regulatory frameworks or services, either through continuous improvement in outcomes or outputs or through innovative changes that alter the understanding of a problem or task and lead to new ways of solving it” [14]. To summarize, co-creation is a process in which a broad range of interdependent actors are involved in distributed, boundary-crossing collaboration to define common problems and develop and implement new and better solutions [63]. Building on this foundation, recent studies emphasize the growing role of co-creation in creating public value beyond traditional performance metrics.

Co-creation is understood as a collaborative process in which citizens, public institutions and other stakeholders work together to develop innovative solutions and increase public value [60,63]. This approach goes beyond efficiency-oriented outcomes and includes democratic quality, shared goal-setting and collaborative sense-making [64,65]. Nevertheless, it remains a challenge to achieve positive outcomes in different policy areas and for all actors involved [66]. The integration of ICT has created new opportunities for broader engagement in the creation of public value [67,68]. To realize the full potential of co-creation, public decision makers need to strategically incorporate and align stakeholders’ different perceptions of public value [63,69].

Despite its potential benefits, the effective implementation of co-creation depends on overcoming various drivers and barriers that can both enable and hinder the process. Important drivers include political support, citizens’ competence and the organizational readiness of public organizations [70,71]. At the same time, barriers such as structural, organizational and behavioral factors as well as funding constraints and systemic conditions can hinder co-creation efforts [72,73]. Research suggests that the success of co-creation depends more on the willingness of citizens to participate in co-creation and the availability of social capital than on the efforts of public officials [74]. Consequently, assessing organizational maturity for co-creation has become crucial, with models developed to assess readiness across multiple attributes [24,75,76]. The suitability of public services for co-creation can also be assessed using decision support models [77,78]. Ultimately, transforming the public sector into an arena conducive to co-creation requires addressing institutional design, public leadership and systemic change [49]. Understanding these factors is essential for the effective implementation of the co-creation process. As Ref. [79] noted, creativity in itself is relatively easy, and many professionals are very creative. The greater challenge is to translate creative ideas into innovative concepts, which is often hindered by resistance to change and structural and cultural barriers. While we focus on public administration, similar barriers have been observed in other sectors. For example, Ref. [80] studied co-creative problem solving in a mature Norwegian high-tech company and identified eight success criteria, such as sharing knowledge, enabling creativity, focusing on users and grasping complexity. These findings underscore the value of co-creative approaches for achieving significant innovation, even in complex or resistant organizational environments.

Having developed a comprehensive understanding of co-creation, its defining characteristics and the critical factors that influence its successful implementation, it is important to explore the tools and methods that can support decision making in this complex context. Decision support systems (DSSs) are a promising approach to assist public organizations in assessing readiness, addressing drivers and barriers, and making informed decisions to promote effective co-creation processes. The following section introduces the concept of DSS, focusing on the Decision EXpert (DEX) method, which facilitates multi-criteria decision making tailored to the complex process of assessing organizational readiness for co-creation.

2.2. Decision Support System

Decision making is an integral part of almost all areas of human activity, with varying degrees of complexity. It ranges from simple, routine decisions that are sometimes made unconsciously, such as choosing what to wear or which lane to drive in, to complex and difficult problems. These complex decisions often arise in areas such as leadership, management, human resources and business planning. Consequently, the management of companies and organizations often faces such challenges. Decision problems can be tackled with the help of decision models that help decision makers make good decisions in a systematic and structured way. Numerous decision making methods and models have been developed to help decision makers achieve their objectives [81].

The decision making process usually proceeds in several steps or phases, although the number and classification of these phases vary among different authors. For example, Ref. [82] proposed a five-step or phase model that includes the following: (1) identification of the decision problem; (2) identification of alternatives; (3) decomposition and modeling of the problem; (4) evaluation, analysis and selection of alternatives; and (5) implementation of the decision, which is the outcome of the process and is not a separate phase.

During this process, the decision maker may encounter various obstacles that complicate the task of making a decision and increase the difficulty of the decision problem itself. These obstacles can occur at any stage of the process. For example, (1) imprecisely or vaguely defined objectives are often the result of a poorly specified decision problem; (2) poorly identified decision problems may also result from conflicts of interest or conflicting objectives among decision groups; (3) the identification of alternatives may be hindered by a large number of options or alternatives or by insufficient information about their characteristics or features; and (4) the decomposition and modeling of the problem is further complicated by the presence of numerous factors (criteria or attributes) and the challenge of determining their relative importance. This is often approached subjectively, leading to potentially divergent solutions by different decision makers. It is therefore advisable to involve experts from the relevant field in both the modeling of the problem and the weighting of the criteria. (5) In addition, limited knowledge of the decision making process itself combined with time and resource constraints can further hinder effective decision making. When decision making involves the evaluation of many criteria, such as assessing an organization’s readiness for co-creation public services, the process falls into the realm of multi-criteria decision making (MCDM).

Multi-criteria decision making is a broad term that encompasses a variety of methods designed to support decision making through the structured and systematic evaluation of multiple, often conflicting, criteria [83]. Given the wide range of methods, selecting the most appropriate method poses a decision problem of its own, a paradox described by [84], which highlights the challenge of selecting the right method to solve a decision problem. Ref. [85] proposed a taxonomy of features describing the multi-criteria decision making process, and subsequently developed a decision support system (DSS) for selecting an appropriate multi-criteria decision making method [25,86]. In the present study, this decision support system was used to select the most appropriate multi-criteria decision making method. Multi-criteria decision making encompasses numerous methods for solving complex decision problems in which multiple, often conflicting, criteria play a role [87]. Major MCDM approaches include pairwise comparison, outranking and distance-based methods, using well-known techniques such as AHP, ANP, ELECTRE, PROMETHEE, TOSPIS and VIKOR [88]. These methods are typically categorized by their aggregation functions, which often represent a “closeness to ideal” [89]. Although these approaches are widely used, each of them has specific advantages and limitations depending on the problem context, the type of criteria and the required interpretability of the results.

For this study, the Decision EXpert (DEX) method was selected as it is suitable for hierarchical, qualitative and rule-based decision problems [90]. DEX uniquely combines decision analysis with artificial intelligence by using qualitative symbolic attributes and “if–then” decision rules that ensure transparency, comprehensibility consistency and completeness of the decision models [91]. It also provides specialized analysis tools, such as selective explanation and what-if analysis, which improve usability compared to traditional approaches [91,92]. Since 1979, DEX has been successfully applied in hundreds of real-world projects in various domains [93], further demonstrating its robustness and practical applicability.

Due to the specific requirements of this study, including the hierarchical structure of the criteria and the complex interactions between sub-criteria, the DSS [25,86] recommended DEX as the most appropriate method. The main features and implementation of DEX are explained in the following subsection.

Decision EXpert

Decision EXpert (DEX) is an expert system shell developed to support multi-criteria decision making and is primarily intended for solving complex decision problems. It encourages the decision maker to thoroughly understand the decision problem by identifying relevant attributes and their measurement scales. Unlike traditional approaches that rely on mathematical weightings, DEX extracts the user’s knowledge through qualitative decision rules, such as “if the price is high and the quality is low, then the option is not acceptable” [94]. The model is hierarchically structured and resembles a decision tree in which the attributes are organized according to their dependencies: The basic attributes (the leaves of the tree) are directly linked to the characteristics of the alternatives, while the aggregated attributes (internal nodes) are derived using predefined utility functions. The highest aggregated attribute represents the overall utility or evaluation score of an alternative.

The individual utility functions determine how the values of the lower-level attributes are combined into higher-level scores. For each aggregated attribute Y, the decision maker specifies a utility function F that maps the values of its input attributes X_i [34]. The input of the model is represented by the parameters (attributes/criteria) X_i, which describe the sub-problems of the decision problem, i.e., the factors that define the quality of the alternatives. Each alternative is described by its basic attributes with values a_i, and the one that receives the highest score is usually considered the most suitable.

In this study, we construct a decision model to assess organizational readiness for co-creation using DEXi software [81], building on the approach proposed by [24], which applies the DEX method to assess organizational readiness for co-creation.

While decision support systems such as the DEX method provide a structured, transparent and rule-based framework for assessing an organization’s readiness for co-creation, their value lies in the fact that they enable a consistent assessment of complex qualitative factors based on expert knowledge.

Building on the theoretical overview of decision support systems, the next section explains the methodological approach that was used to systematically analyze the literature on the drivers and barriers of co-creation and the application of decision support systems in assessing co-creation readiness.

3. Materials and Methods

In this paper, we use design science research (DSR) [95] as a scientific approach because we want to develop a decision model (artifact) that is both practically applicable and theoretically grounded. The development process was informed by two preparatory steps: (1) a content analysis of Web of Science (WoS) articles was conducted to identify drivers and barriers to co-creation, and (2) a content analysis of WoS articles was conducted, focusing on decision models, to assess organizational readiness or organizational maturity. Based on these findings, we applied a structured, DSR framework with six phases, as proposed by [96], to guide the development, demonstration and initial validation of the decision model.

3.1. Content Analysis—Drivers and Barriers of Co-Creation

A content analysis on the drivers and barriers of co-creation was conducted by analyzing articles from the Web of Science (WoS). According to [97], the WoS is widely regarded as the world’s leading platform for searching through the scientific literature and conducting citation-based analysis [98]. The platform’s strengths include its broad coverage of scholarly publications, robust citation analysis tools and ability to track research impact without compromising historical coverage, as well as its suitability for searching and analyzing open access resources at the publication level [99].

The criteria for searching articles were the following:

• Time period: between 2009 and 2024;
• Terms used in the search: “co-creation” and “co-production”;
• WoS category: public administration;
• Language: English.

Limiting the search to the category of public administration corresponds to the research question, which focuses on operationalizing the drivers and barriers of co-creation specifically in public organizations. This approach ensures that the resulting decision model is grounded in the organizational realities of the public sector while maintaining methodological rigor. Although this approach focuses specifically on the context of public administration to ensure relevance to the assessment of organizational readiness in public organizations, we acknowledge that insights from other disciplines could complement the framework, but these were beyond the scope of the present study.

We included both concepts (co-creation and co-production) in the literature search and analysis because although they are different concepts, they are often used interchangeably by authors [1,8]. If we limited the analysis of contributions only to co-creation, we might overlook some of the drivers and barriers of co-creation. On the other hand, the concepts of co-creation and co-production, although distinct, are cyclically intertwined as they refer to different phases of the same collaborative process, blurring the boundary between these two concepts [100].

Using the above criteria, we identified 519 articles. In the next step, we used the computer software Orange Data Mining 3.38 [101] and its text analysis modules to find all articles containing the words “driver”, “drivers”, “barrier”, “barriers”, “enabler”, “enablers”, “obstacle”, “obstacles”, “challenge”, “challenges”, “feature” and “features”. In this way, 158 additional articles were removed from the processing, leaving 361 articles for manual analysis (see Figure 1).

In our content analysis, we found that almost 70% of the articles referred directly or indirectly to co-creation factors. In most cases, the authors did not refer to them as drivers and barriers, but as problems and opportunities that influence the co-creation process. Refs. [24,70] divided the identified drivers and barriers into three groups: (1) structural/organizational drivers/barriers, (2) drivers/barriers related to internal (public organizations) co-creators and (3) contextual drivers/barriers. They mentioned two additional categories (“external co-creator” and “quality of relationship between co-creators”) that were excluded from the cleaned version of the drivers and barriers as they did not directly or indirectly relate to organizational aspects of the public organization, i.e., its characteristics and capacities. They felt that such a systematization was best suited to determine which drivers and barriers were relevant to the organizational structure of a public institution.

However, the review of the literature also revealed a diverse and growing group of drivers and barriers related to digital transformation that was not fully captured in the above structure. In recent years, there has been a strong emphasis on digitalization and digital transformation with the Digital Goals [26] and the Digital Strategy [27]. Furthermore, Ref. [102] argues that inclusive co-creation requires specific design and promotion of both digital and non-digital environments and emphasizes that accessibility and interaction must be considered throughout the co-creation process. Based on these developments, this study addresses the digital dimension as a separate and necessary aspect when assessing organizational readiness for co-creation.

3.2. Content Analysis—Decision Support Systems Used for Assessment of Organizational Maturity or Organizational Readiness

The content analysis on the decision support systems used for readiness assessment was conducted by analyzing articles from the Web of Science (WoS). The criteria used to search for articles were the following:

Terms used in the search: (“organizational maturity” OR “organizational readiness”) AND (“decision support system” OR “decision model” OR “decision support model” OR “DSS”).

Based on the above criteria, we identified nine articles. The systematic content analysis shows that decision support systems are used for different ways of assessing organizational maturity or organizational readiness using decision support systems. The articles overall emphasize the importance of organizational readiness in different sectors: (1) public services [24,70], (2) airlines [103], (3) healthcare [104,105], (4) manufacturing [106] and the financial sector [107]. In the analyzed papers, different decision support methods were used to assess organizational readiness: (1) Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) [106,107], (2) Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) [104], (3) Decision EXpert (DEX) [24,70], (4) Fuzzy Cognitive Maps (FCM) [70], (5) Fuzzy Logic [107] and (6) the Hierarchical Decision Model (HDM) [103,108].

Of the identified studies, only two apply decision models specifically to assess organizational readiness for co-creation [24,70].

3.3. Framework for Development of Decision Model

The development of the decision model was guided by a structured framework based on the principles of design science research (DSR). This framework consists of five steps that reflect both the decision making process and the phases of the decision making process and the design and evaluation of artifacts in DSR [82,95,96]. Each phase ensures that the model is systematically developed, theoretically grounded, logically consistent and suitable for application in practice.

While [96] proposes a six-phase DSR methodology, we opted for a five-phase structure to better align with the decision modeling process [82]. In particular, the demonstration and evaluation phases were integrated into a single step, as they are closely linked in this study. The communication phase is reflected in the final phase, which includes future preparation for the implementation and refinement of the model.

The phases of the framework used are the following (see Figure 2):

• Problem identification and relevance: Define the decision problem and establish its practical and scientific relevance to provide the basis for development.
• Specification of decision objectives and requirements: Identify and structure the key decision criteria, objectives and constraints based on theoretical and empirical evidence.
• Design and development of the decision model: Construct the model by organizing the criteria hierarchically, defining weightings and implementing decision rules.
• Demonstration and internal validation: Apply the model to synthetic cases to test its logic, consistency and ability to produce meaningful results.
• Preparation for real-world use and expert validation: Outline directions for future application of the model, including expert-based determination of weights, real-world testing and organizational adjustments.

This structured approach ensures methodological rigor in the development of a decision model that combines the interpretability and transparency of decision support systems with systematic design principles from design science research.

Having established the conceptual and methodological basis for our approach, the following chapter presents the practical implementation of the proposed DSR framework. Each subchapter corresponds to one of the five phases described earlier, outlining the development of the decision model to assess an organization’s readiness for co-creation. This structured walkthrough shows how the theoretical principles were operationalized in practice.

4. Results

Despite this wide use of decision models, there are only two studies focusing on organizational readiness for co-creation. Refs. [24,70] developed decision models to assess organizational readiness for co-creation in the public sector, but they do not include more recent findings and criteria published in the 2020s. Their models provide a valuable foundation, but the co-creation landscape has evolved significantly in recent years, particularly with regard to digital transformation and data governance. This study builds on these earlier frameworks by systematically identifying updated drivers and barriers and integrating them into a hierarchically structured decision model for assessing organizational readiness for co-creation.

4.1. Step 1: Problem Identification and Relevance (Identification of Drivers and Barriers to Co-Creation)

Modern public organizations increasingly operate in a dynamic and complex environment that demands more adaptive, collaborative and citizen-centric approaches to service delivery. In response, they are becoming an integral part of an innovation ecosystem where value is co-created with a variety of stakeholders, i.e., citizens, government, policy makers and other public and private organizations and institutions [109].

While co-creation offers considerable potential to increase public value, it also poses challenges. Involving multiple stakeholders with different interests and capabilities can lead not only to co-creation of public value but also to co-destruction when misalignment, lack of coordination or poor coordination lead to negative outcomes [110,111,112].

In this context, understanding organizational readiness for co-creation becomes crucial. Civil servants and decision makers need to assess whether their organization has the conditions, resources and support mechanisms to effectively engage in co-creation processes. Therefore, the first step in developing a decision model to assess an organization’s readiness for co-creation is to clearly identify its drivers and barriers. This understanding forms the basis for assessing whether an organization is sufficiently prepared for co-creation and supports informed decision making regarding the feasibility and enablers for the introduction of co-created public services.

4.1.1. Drivers and Barriers Related to Organizational or Structural Aspects

One of the most important drivers in this group of drivers and barriers is the organizational structure that influences the implementation of co-creation [113,114]. Another driver related to organizational structure is the “change in the existing organizational structure and culture” [115,116,117], which refers not only to a change in organizational form, but also to cultural changes that alter the priorities, incentives, assumptions and expectations of all stakeholders [116,118]. Such change implies the introduction of new forms of accountability and leadership (from a hierarchical, authoritarian management approach to a more open, diverse and reflexive approach [115,119,120]), the creation of (new) opportunities for stakeholder engagement (through the organization of regular, carefully designed meetings and events [36,121,122,123] or through information technology [114,124,125,126,127,128,129]) and restructuring existing implementation, financing, monitoring and enforcement modalities to enable co-creation processes [117,130,131]. A lack of coherence in the organization, a low level of managerial autonomy, the absence of an existing tradition of collaboration and relatively few incentives for closer collaboration constitute barriers to co-creation. Therefore, any meaningful effort to move towards co-creation with citizens requires a more coherent and coordinated structure that enables genuine community participation [130,132].

Many authors (e.g., [122,133,134,135]) have identified network governance as the most suitable form of co-creation, as it enables a broader form of co-creation with service users and other stakeholders. Due to the complex interaction of multiple stakeholders working towards different outcomes [136], a one-size-fits-all approach with one-size-fits-all solutions does not work as it cannot take into account the different needs and preconditions of stakeholders [111,137,138]. Flat organizational hierarchies are particularly beneficial as they reduce bureaucratic distance, encourage participation at all levels of the organization and promote more flexible, inclusive and responsive co-creation processes. Such hierarchies appear to encourage a greater focus on building relationships with service users, which is essential for building trust in co-creation [139]. Ref. [140] also found that flat hierarchies are a key factor in promoting effective co-creation in mental health recovery programs. In contrast, traditional bureaucratic structures characterized by administrative silos, long chains of command and institutional isolation are poorly suited for co-creation. They hinder the development of collaborative spaces across organizational boundaries [141]. To overcome this, co-creative governance systems should build on dialogic practices that reduce hierarchical power imbalances and promote the personal engagement of different actors [142]. Informal, horizontal forms of authority based on relational dynamics and leadership are more conducive to such governance [141].

For successful co-creation, less centralized and highly connected structures that enable decentralized or polycentric governance are therefore recommended [5,119,143]. These highly connected structures should involve public and private actors and enable politicians to connect with stakeholders, break down administrative silos and facilitate cross-sectoral and cross-organizational collaboration between public and private actors [14,113,138,144]. If public administration continues to work in silos, this hinders the development of existing policies and practices [36,145,146,147,148]. In practice, sectoral organizational structures often prevent collaboration and the sharing of staff and resources across organizational boundaries. Frontline co-creators emphasize how internal rivalries between managers and the persistence of siloed structures hinder the implementation of cross-disciplinary co-creation initiatives. Managers emphasize the need for clear strategic goals and binding interorganizational agreements as a prerequisite for enabling co-creation processes [149]. Co-creation is not suitable for rigid planning processes with predefined goals [36]. The co-creation process must therefore be organized adaptively and flexibly, taking into account and incorporating the views of the various people and factors involved in the process [137,150]. A successful co-creation process is therefore adaptable and relies on imperfect policy designs that can be tangibly and directly influenced by participants through participation [151,152,153]. However, the vision and goals must be clear and coherent [154,155], as a shared understanding of the goals is a prerequisite for collaboration [123,156]. Developing and agreeing on shared goals among all stakeholders for the process and its outcomes is critical to reducing conflict and creating meaningful engagement. Furthermore, the process of co-creation benefits from an adaptive and iterative approach in which these shared objectives are regularly revised and refined. Such reflexive goal setting helps to align expectations and establish shared benchmarks for success [157,158,159]. Shared strategic goals are a central pillar of successful co-creation, but these goals must evolve through continuous reflection and adaptation. Iterative strategic planning is a process in which strategies are continuously refined based on participant feedback and changing conditions to ensure that co-creation remains relevant and responsive over time. This approach has been shown to improve inclusion and reduce dropouts, particularly in long-term initiatives where participants’ needs or availability may change [160,161,162]. At a strategic level, regular revision of shared goals helps to align expectations, supports reflexivity and promotes more meaningful outcomes [157,158,159]. Achieving this level of adaptability in co-creation also requires what [62] describes as a co-creation leadership approach, which focuses on creative problem solving and innovation. In contrast to traditional leadership, which focuses on achieving predetermined goals, co-creation leadership encourages participants to explore challenges together, bring in different skills and design, prototype and test new solutions. An excessive focus on individual organizational inputs or outputs can hinder collaboration, as partners may wonder if their contributions are aligned with their goals or are being hijacked by others. Instead, co-creation benefits from a shared, problem-oriented focus that encourages experimentation, responsiveness and mutual learning [141]. Rather than formalizing and standardizing processes, successful co-creation requires a degree of freedom of action, decision making autonomy and an environment that prioritizes collaboration over competition and values citizen empowerment [163,164,165]. Professionalism and citizen empowerment are also important aspects of service delivery and improvement [166], as empowered citizens contribute to the continuous improvement in services through feedback and criticism [167]. The lack of feedback loops between organizations in public administration and citizens is a barrier to the co-creation process [146]; thus, a constant two-way communication channel between public officials and citizens is needed [129,142,168,169,170,171]. In addition to establishing two-way channels, managers need to engage in trust-building dialog that reduces hierarchical distance and enables constructive interaction with stakeholders. This dialog is not only about transparency, but also provides managers with the opportunity to learn from active, competent and critical participants, fostering shared ownership of goals and shared values [141]. This emphasis on trust-building is especially true given the increasing pressure placed on public authorities by a more critical, anti-authoritarian and competent public, combined with a continuing decline in trust in government. In such a context, public authorities can be incentivized to engage in dialog aimed at improving relations with citizens, although many governments continue to adopt a more closed or hierarchical approach [63]. In addition to trust-building dialog, the culture of transparency in public organizations also plays a crucial role in supporting effective co-creation. Transparency increases the legitimacy and accountability of co-creation efforts by allowing external stakeholders to follow processes, scrutinize outcomes and hold actors accountable for decisions made in the co-creation arena [172]. A lack of transparency, on the other hand, can lead to confusion, exclusion or even the destruction of value because communication fails, trust dwindles and opportunities for participation are limited [173,174]. This model assumes that transparency not only prevents co-destruction but also contributes to increased legitimacy and willingness to participate in co-creation. Organizations in public administration need to change the way they communicate and engage with stakeholders to ensure that concepts and practices are adapted to be better understood and implemented by communities [137]. A successful co-creation process also requires the development of structures and processes to reach hard-to-reach and seldom heard stakeholders or groups, not just the “usual suspects” [150,175,176]. This also includes a deliberate attempt to include so-called “silent voices”, i.e., those who are often marginalized or systematically excluded from participation [175]. Hard-to-reach stakeholders can also be represented by their representatives, which helps to include their interests in co-creation [177]. However, a persistent barrier is the lack of institutionalized arenas for co-creation that truly involve politicians, citizens and relevant stakeholders in collaborative problem solving. Designing such arenas is challenging, as it is necessary to involve the affected actors while avoiding selection biases that favor already engaged or dominant groups, which can undermine democratic legitimacy [62,178]. The co-creation process needs to be carefully planned because it is important to (1) know who you want to include in the process, (2) reach out to a diversity of stakeholders and (3) include marginalized and disenfranchised groups [123,179,180,181]. This prevents the inclusion of citizens who represent a particular concern and are not representative of other interest groups or the general public in the co-creation process. Such citizens usually do not reflect the diversity of stakeholders and consequently do not necessarily promote the common interest [182]. Participants can be encouraged to participate either through so-called incentive strategies [183,184] or by facilitating the process itself through IT [114,126,127,185]. In contrast to [183,184], some authors claim that incentives, monetary compensation and rewards do not significantly increase citizens’ willingness to co-create [186,187,188]. This suggests that material incentives may not be the primary driver of co-creative engagement [187].

On the organizational side, inflexible salary systems and a lack of internal reward mechanisms can be barriers to effective co-creation. Public organizations can struggle to attract skilled professionals from outside their sector, as rigid structures often do not take into account the experience gained in other areas and require newcomers to start from scratch [71]. The lack of clear and meaningful incentives in contexts characterized by internal rivalry or silo-like structures can also weaken the implementation of co-creation strategies [149]. Furthermore, inconsistent or even counterproductive incentives within welfare systems may reduce clients’ motivation to actively engage, as they may face weak or conflicting incentives to exit dependency [189]. Overall, this suggests that co-creation is best supported by a diversified and context-sensitive approach to incentives that combines tangible and intangible incentives while removing structural disincentives.

Another important organizational factor is strategic planning capacity, i.e., the ability to realistically plan and allocate resources for co-creation initiatives. This includes realistic budget planning, utilizing established community groups to support trust-building and recruitment and maintaining institutional flexibility to support non-traditional engagement formats. Prior experience with co-creation and established relationships with vulnerable groups have been shown to improve inclusion and participation [190].

Considering that the New Public Management governance model supports and encourages multi-stakeholder networking and partnership and favors a culture of flexibility and collaboration with the public sector [191], demonstrating or formally valuing the positive impact of co-creation is also an important factor of co-creation [177,192,193,194]. The positive impact or value of co-creation must be recognized by all stakeholders involved in the process [36]. This recognition goes beyond the service itself and includes any additional tangible or intangible incentives that the company can offer to further encourage customer engagement [184,195]. According to [195], whether an organization engages in a co-creation process depends on three conditions: (1) both parties must be available to do the work required of them, (2) no one else must be available to do the work required and (3) co-creation must be a better or cheaper option than internal development. These three conditions show that access to resources is an important driver for co-creation. Resources can take different forms, e.g., time, knowledge and skills, human resources and finances [114,144,146,177,185,194,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203,204]. Public managers and employees are increasingly aware that they do not have the ideas, resources and means to solve difficult and wicked problems themselves, which is why they need to mobilize the knowledge, resources and ideas of external actors [14,189,205].

Drivers related to organizational or structural aspects include the following:

• Encouraging two-way communication, with an emphasis on receiving feedback and criticism;
• Strategies in place to mobilize and motivate external stakeholders (including hard-to-reach and marginalized ones);
• Evidence or formal evaluation of the positive impact of co-creation;
• Trust-building dialogs;
• Transparency culture;
• Readiness to change the existing organizational structure;
• Network governance, less centralized and highly connected groups;
• Promoting a culture of collaboration with all stakeholders;
• Readiness for cultural change (e.g., changing priorities, incentives, assumptions and expectations);
• Flat structures;
• Clearly defined vision and objectives;
• Use of flexible solutions instead of one-size-fits-all;
• Shared strategic objectives;
• Iterative strategic planning;
• Adaptive innovation capacity;
• Sufficient financial resources;
• Sufficient human resources;
• Incentive system in place (includes solidarity-based and financial/personal incentives);
• Strategic planning capacity.

In the next subsection, we will present the drivers and barriers to co-creation in terms of internal and external stakeholders and the relationships between them.

4.1.2. Drivers and Barriers Related to Individual or Stakeholder Aspects

Regarding the awareness of public managers that solving difficult cases is only possible through collaboration with external actors or external stakeholders, we find that co-creation depends on the degree of dependency between public organizations and citizens [195]. The relationship between public servants and citizens needs to change from dependency to mutuality and reciprocity. Also, the perspective of citizens must also change, as they are not only users but also a source of value creation for the system [137], which helps them to better understand social problems, plan new solutions and generate support for their implementation [14]. All stakeholders must be willing and able to participate in the co-creation process [113,122,164,206,207,208,209,210]. Citizens are willing to engage in co-creation when their public service needs are not met, and even then, only for a relatively narrow range of activities that are truly important to them, while at the same time, they want organizations not to waste their co-creation efforts [114]. However, the willingness to engage in co-creation can also be increased, for example, by improving the friendliness of the environment [177] or by fostering a culture of learning from mistakes, as this represents a culture of continuous improvement, which leads to a desire to innovate or co-create [115]. For co-creation to be successful, it is important to develop a sustainable and recurring relationship between all stakeholders based on a dialog very early in the co-creation process [131,211]. Good and constructive communication between stakeholders helps to build a strong relationship [176,212]. Refs. [118,213] emphasize the importance of frequent and sustained communication, keeping commitments, sharing information and admitting mistakes—actions that reinforce an organizational culture focused on social equity. Building strong relationships also requires time, trust and understanding between stakeholders [6,131,165,214,215,216]. To achieve understanding, it is also important to ensure that all stakeholders are involved in defining the issues, discussing them and making decisions [180]. The expected outcomes and objectives must be clearly defined so that they can be effectively understood and respected by all [123,133,147,154]. All stakeholders must commit to working together and creating value for the other stakeholders [163]. Successful co-creation also depends on a commitment from participants that if one party increases its contribution, the other party will continue at the same or a higher level [151,152]. In addition, the relationship between the public organization and its citizens must be based on openness, transparency, accountability and equity [123,127,177,197,209,217]. In terms of accountability, unclear accountability fostered by poorly defined roles and unclear stakeholder expectations has a negative impact on the co-creation process [218].

This relationship is also negatively affected by asymmetries in knowledge, skills, power, expertise and information [121,122,156,180,218,219,220,221]. While asymmetry has a negative impact on the relationship between stakeholders, a lack of trust, interdependence, meaningful participation, accountability, transparency, genuine dialog, knowledge, skills, expertise, information and transparency impairs the co-creation process [117,136,138,148,192,196,199,220,222,223,224,225]. The relationship between the co-creators should be representative, meaning that the composition of participants should reflect different social interests, viewpoints and positions of power [168,177,180,182,197]. Given the multiplicity of different stakeholders, it makes sense to have a qualified leader (who may be a civil servant or an external expert hired specifically for this purpose, or both) to lead the co-creation process, build trust with citizens and ensure that they are taken seriously, motivate and involve them, guide them to better articulate their views, manage conflict, reduce power imbalances, reconcile different wants and needs, and reach a common agreement [14,121,150,207,225,226,227,228,229]. Strong leaders who can take on the role of co-creation advocates with a clear vision and sufficient management capacity are important for progress in co-creation that enables effective implementation of outcomes [117]. Strong leadership is not meant here in the traditional sense (command and control hierarchy), but rather as inclusive, collaborative and adaptive leadership [14,115,230,231].

An important driver of co-creation in public organizations is an outward orientation that promotes problem solving through collaboration and resource sharing across boundaries, sectors and institutions. Ref. [62] emphasizes that co-creation requires overcoming bureaucratic silos and institutional isolation by creating spaces for collaboration between distributed actors from different organizations and sectors. Similarly, Ref. [16] illustrates how co-creation can bring about organizational changes such as the formation of cross-boundary planning groups, new citizen-centered leadership roles and partnerships with academic institutions, including the establishment of a co-creation school. These structural changes are often accompanied by the development of a new organizational culture, which can take a long time. The importance of such cross-sector engagement is also highlighted by [118,213], who take a systemic perspective to show how interorganizational networks can meet complex user needs and promote social equity. Ref. [232] similarly points to the need for networked, cross-sector partnerships to tackle “wicked” social problems, which has also been emphasized in earlier works by [233,234]. This shift from siloed approaches to collaborative paradigms highlights the broader change required in governance practice. Ref. [235] emphasizes that co-creation involves tensions between different sectors and interests. This requires not only adaptive leadership but also an institutional environment that allows and enables sustainable collaboration between the micro, meso and macro levels. Likewise, the organizational culture in public organizations plays a crucial role in facilitating or preventing such a process. As noted by [149], the sectoral structure of local government can hinder collaboration across organizational boundaries, with internal rivalries and unclear strategic goals posing a major challenge. This aligns with earlier observations by [236,237], which suggest that risk-averse cultures and weak cross-sector collaboration limit the effectiveness of co-creation. The lack of mandates and authority to act across institutional boundaries is another key barrier. Ref. [71] reports that even when municipal authorities support citizens’ initiatives, cross-sectoral or cross-institutional collaboration may fail due to the involvement of central institutions that do not have a shared interest or commitment. In this context, the design of institutional ecosystems becomes crucial. Refs. [238,239] argue that effective co-creation requires not only a strong public sector or civil society but also platforms and arenas explicitly designed for cross-sectoral co-creation. Transparency and continued investment in cross-sector networks are essential for sustainable co-creation. Ref. [240] emphasizes that sector-specific goals and interests must be integrated into the collective process to ensure legitimacy and avoid hidden agendas that undermine collaboration.

In such a non-hierarchical environment with multiple actors, leadership plays a crucial role, even if there is no formal authority. Ref. [241] emphasizes that co-creation leaders must lead across organizational and sectoral boundaries without hierarchical power, relying on soft power [242] and continuously demonstrating their value to gain legitimacy. This lack of formal authority is a well-documented challenge in public sector collaboration [154]. Ref. [141] points out that informal horizontal authority based on relational characteristics and leadership capacities is a factor that enables co-creation.

Also, participation for the sake of participation is not enough; all stakeholders involved in the process must recognize the value of co-creation and see themselves in the role of co-creators of public services [36,221]. In terms of collaboration, there may also be two psychological barriers that stakeholders need to overcome before they can work together. The first barrier is a very self-critical understanding of one’s own ability to collaborate. The second barrier is a bias where one person takes more responsibility for success than their partners and less responsibility for failures in value creation [36,198,243].

One of the main obstacles to collaboration with internal stakeholders is the mindset of civil servants. They are often not open to innovation and tend to follow traditional styles of governance and management. Consequently, they perceive citizens as passive subjects rather than active actors in a co-creation process that goes beyond mere consultation [124,125,131,146,244]. Officials need to change negative attitudes towards citizens, communities and their members, trust them, be willing to engage with them and have a positive attitude towards their initiatives [113,212,245,246]. Those officials who propose ideas that align with community development approaches will also be more open to co-creation [137]. In addition to changing citizens’ perceptions, public officials must also be able to motivate citizens to participate [247,248], think outside the box [249] and be willing to be surprised, i.e., not only should they have the ability to experiment and examine the effects of one’s actions but they should also be willing to question and criticize one’s own work and that of partners, even after a decision has been made [226].

Recognizing what motivates citizens to participate in co-creation processes is crucial to activate their potential and foster meaningful engagement [250,251]. Citizens can be driven by egocentric motivations, such as personal gain [204], or by community-centered motivations, including solidarity and a sense of contributing to the creation of public value [252,253]. These motivations can be both extrinsic (e.g., personal gain) as well as intrinsic (e.g., alignment with ethical values or civic duties) [193,254,255,256,257,258]. Motivation is also influenced by how participants perceive their treatment, e.g., if their contributions are not understood or valued, their willingness to participate may decrease [259,260]. Signs of appreciation, on the other hand, increase motivation and help to build trust [260]. Barriers to motivation can also arise from time pressure, lack of immediate benefits or uncertain outcomes, which can discourage both citizens and professionals from sustainable engagement [16,141]. Furthermore, the motivations of government actors differ, as politicians may be driven by electoral considerations, while street-level managers may be motivated by collective motivations and a desire to facilitate public services [255,261].

A frequently cited barrier to co-creation is the unwillingness of civil servants and senior managers to relinquish control and share power. Public officials may view co-creation as unreliable because citizen behavior is unpredictable [262,263,264]. This reluctance is deeply entrenched even in New Public Governance environments, as traditional political and administrative cultures continue to resist decentralization of authority [18,60]. In particular, senior public managers may be unwilling to relinquish the control they have exercised in the past [60,265]. Furthermore, some local politicians see their political legitimacy threatened if they grant privileged influence to small groups of citizens [62]. Risk aversion, conservative attitudes and a lack of institutional space to include citizens as equals exacerbate this resistance [149,266]. Nonetheless, empirical evidence suggests that changing staff attitudes towards co-creation is essential to initiate broader institutional change [139,267].

Creating structured spaces where different actors can come together, build relationships and engage in dialog is essential for co-creation. Ref. [21] emphasizes the need to create opportunities where public value communities can meet and collaborate. In practice, such forums can take the form of partnership meetings where all participants are invited to speak up and reflect on challenges and opportunities, as is the case with appreciative inquiry methods. However, rigid co-creation structures can be counterproductive if overly bureaucratic processes, such as the use of consent forms or detailed reporting of events, hinder the inclusion of vulnerable groups in particular [268]. To achieve social equity and improve the quality of services, forums need to promote communication, mutual understanding and networked collaboration. This includes building trust and motivation to collaborate, as well as establishing structural mechanisms that support joint problem solving [213,269].

Many authors emphasize the importance of evaluation and continuous reflexive assessment, especially with regard to power dynamics and stakeholder wellbeing [270,271,272]. Ref. [273], for example, advocates for the early and ongoing development of mutually agreed-upon ethical principles that are applied throughout the process to address emerging dilemmas. Practical tools to support such deliberations include steering committees composed of group representatives and dedicated committees that serve as a sounding board [190].

Internal stakeholders must also have sufficient resources, autonomy, time, an appropriate workload and connection to other external stakeholders from the public sector and/or NGOs [163,177,215,225,244]. Nevertheless, time constraints are often a major barrier. Ref. [274] highlights that many participants struggled to fully engage in co-creation due to competing responsibilities and lack of time for innovation-related work. In addition, unclear expectations around time commitments were cited as a barrier limiting the ability of internal stakeholders to consistently engage in the process.

Capacity building was cited as an important driver for inclusive and sustainable co-creation, particularly when working with vulnerable groups. Several studies recommend supporting the development of knowledge and skills through targeted training. This may include interviewer training, data analysis training or design training [161,162,190,272,275]. In some cases, participants were also given access to institutional facilities and development programs. For example, Ref. [272] describes how mental health service users were employed as researchers and given full access to facilities. While much of the literature focuses on capacity building for citizens, some authors also point to the value of training for researchers and project managers to support engagement with vulnerable groups [190,276,277,278]. Ref. [277] describes the “Get Talking” program, which provides tools and methods for ethical and participatory work at different stages of co-creation.

In addition to all of the above, internal stakeholder soft skills such as willpower, empathetic listening, conflict management, problem solving and building and maintaining a reflective and reciprocal relationship are also important as they contribute to successful co-creation [131,182,225,279,280]. However, some professionals may lack the necessary skills and methods to collaborate effectively with users and community stakeholders [238,281]. Training and education are also important for all stakeholders, e.g., on new services or to promote co-creation [131,135,177,210].

Institutional experience and staff expertise can support the willingness to co-create. Previous experience with co-creation has been shown to facilitate engagement structures that accommodate different levels of participant engagement [282]. In addition, the availability of financial resources, co-creation expertise and staff experience are recognized factors for co-creation. These resources can support staff training or enable the recruitment of individuals with relevant expertise [17,24].

Risk aversion is highlighted as a barrier to innovation in the co-creation of public services. Ref. [274] describes that both senior managers and frontline staff are not fully supportive of co-creation and refer to a “risk-averse” culture and fear of failure. This study found that people are afraid of failure and that the sector is very risk-averse and used to maintaining the status quo. Similarly, Ref. [193] reports that many politicians, managers and professionals continue to view co-creation as a risky endeavor. Resistance to change is also discussed by [283], which observed that public administration officials often prefer to maintain “business as usual” and are reluctant to embrace innovation in their procedures. Ref. [139] adds that political interests can resist change, especially when innovations emerge outside of prevailing agendas. Refs. [139,284,285] emphasize that both political and practical realities must be overcome for co-created innovations to be accepted. Innovations only spread if they are compatible with the prevailing regimes. Institutional constraints also influence the willingness to accept innovations. Ref. [286] notes that in the criminal justice system, the loss of experienced staff led to limited opportunities and reduced the space for innovation. Refs. [142,287] emphasize the importance of continuous testing, experimentation and adaptation for the use of co-creation to improve governance. Ref. [132] reports that a lack of incentives for innovation, low managerial autonomy and a weak tradition of collaboration and participation pose challenges to innovation in the public sector. Despite these conditions, successful innovation was observed when citizen demand was combined with research into previous user experiences, suggesting that in the absence of institutional support, citizens can become initiators and drivers of public service innovation.

Several studies emphasize the importance of using community knowledge, often referred to as community intelligence or local knowledge, to initiate and maintain trust-based collaboration. This includes a deeper understanding of the cultural, socioeconomic and situational factors that shape the lives of individuals and communities [190,288,289]. Such an understanding can help to better tailor co-creation activities to the needs and preferences of participants. For example, recruitment materials and activities have been adapted to the needs of potential participants, such as short and entertaining formats for sick children [290] or oral group exercises for low-literacy communities [288]. Building personal relationships to identify and utilize existing skills and experiences within the community has also been recommended [275,291]. In some cases, contributors supported project implementation with their own professional backgrounds, such as marketing or graphic design [291]. Conversely, ineffective communication, limited outreach and a lack of awareness of the mechanisms of the program were identified as barriers to community engagement [292]. In the context of citizen-led co-creation [293], it is emphasized that such approaches should be voluntary, have sufficient resources and focus on complementarity between citizens and professional input. Community empowerment through co-creation should not be used as a substitute for state responsibility. Furthermore, the sustainability of co-creation depends on the availability of adequate skills and resources as well as process design and supportive institutional structures [194,198,268,294,295]. Tailored engagement models can vary in complexity and resource requirements, from small-scale informal engagement to structured workshops and large-scale volunteering programs. In smaller communities, co-creation initiatives often face barriers such as a lack of skilled and motivated bureaucrats. Community leaders may not have the necessary skills, making the transition to more participatory governance difficult. Nevertheless, giving citizens the opportunity to contribute ideas adapted to the local context was seen as effective and value-adding [296]. Furthermore, a lack of belonging to the local community and mistrust towards authorities can reduce the willingness to participate in co-creation [252,297,298]. Deep-seated ethnic, political or socio-economic tensions can also undermine collaboration by fostering mutual distrust and reducing the capacity for self-organized collective action. Similarly, persistent government mistrust of local actors, combined with a reluctance to provide resources and support, can affect the ability of local actors to use their knowledge and skills in co-creation processes [238].

Just as trust is important for internal stakeholders, mistrust is also important for external stakeholders, as it impairs the participation of external stakeholders in the co-creation process and the fulfillment of their tasks. External stakeholders lack trust in the government, the public sector and institutions to successfully deliver basic services and be heard. This is highly dependent on previous experiences of working with public services, belief in the commitment of organizations to be truly involved in the decision making process and a sense of being able to contribute productively to the co-creation process [36,144,182,185,223,253,299,300,301]. Distrust is also associated with fear of sanctions, conflict and tension in the community, and loss of (social) benefits [193,218,223,301].

Additional drivers of co-creation for external stakeholders are also incentives. These can take the form of tangible benefits (e.g., money, goods or services) or intangible benefits that focus mainly on intrinsic, solidary incentives, a sense of satisfaction and stakeholders’ expressive needs [151,153,195,204,244]. In more recent studies, the role of such incentives has been further differentiated depending on the cultural and institutional context. For example, in the Western context, solidarity incentives are typically rooted in the organizations to which participants belong [113,302], while in other contexts, such as in China, they often stem from community-based social capital and neighborhood dynamics [303]. Similarly, spiritual or intrinsic motivations such as a sense of solidarity, psychological satisfaction or contribution to public value can positively influence co-creative engagement [250,253,303].

External stakeholders also choose to engage out of self-interest, egocentric and community-oriented motivation, a sense of belonging, self-expression, pride and because it is important to them to co-create [51,113,119,181,223,253,304,305,306].

Group co-creation is highly correlated with self-efficacy, as younger people are more likely to participate in group co-determination and experience high self-efficacy [307]. However, some external stakeholder groups lack this desire and self-efficacy, which can lead to the marginalization of these groups [308]. Self-efficacy, or the belief that external stakeholders can make a difference, is an important driver of co-creation in various sectors [136,163,309,310], making it much easier for people who believe they can make a difference to participate in co-creation [119].

Another very important driver of co-creation in the context of external stakeholders is the importance of the issue or problem, where citizens consider the issue important enough to consider active participation [114,151,204,211,253,300]. Another driver related to the importance of the problem is the possibility of self-service, i.e., the ability to choose one’s form of participation, the choice of activity they want to be involved in and the level of involvement [192,311].

Of course, while external stakeholders can choose the form, activity and degree of participation, there may also be (1) doubts that the other stakeholders are motivated to co-create, and consequently a feeling that there is a possibility that stakeholders may want to scale back their duty to deliver [308]; (2) lack of time [198,218]; (3) overburdening (disadvantaged groups) with active participation and accountability with minimal support compared to internal stakeholders [164,218]; and (4) an overly professional or overly abstract scope of activities [248]. Geopolitical changes also affect co-creation with marginalized groups, as much more effort is required for successful co-creation [36,144], and there is also perceived conservatism and bigotry among mainstream stakeholders, who are also involved in the process of co-creation, towards marginalized, vulnerable groups whose situation is supposed to improve as a result of the new policy [211].

Drivers related to individual or stakeholder aspects include the following:

• Readiness to change the mindset of public servants;
• Readiness to change attitudes towards external stakeholders;
• A strong leader with a role as an advocate for co-creation;
• Reflective organizational mindset;
• Empowerment and openness;
• Positive error culture;
• Ability to propose ideas related to community development;
• Readiness and ability to participate in the co-creation process;
• Ability to recognize the value of co-creation;
• Capacity building for co-creation;
• Leveraging community knowledge;
• Motivation recognition;
• Facilitating co-creation forums;
• Soft skills by public servants;
• A skilled leader who builds the trust of external stakeholders;
• Training or education for public servants to co-create;
• Institutional experience;
• Innovation receptivity;
• Sufficient time or workload for co-creation;
• Autonomy in decision making;
• Boundary-crossing collaboration capacity;
• Non-hierarchical leadership.

In the next subsection, we will present the drivers and barriers of co-creation in the context of the socio-political and legal aspects of the environment in which the organization operates.

4.1.3. Drivers and Barriers Related to Socio-Political–Legal Aspects of the Environment in Which the Organization Operates

Important co-creation drivers and barriers related to socio-political–legal aspects of the environment in which the organization operates are governance models, administrative traditions, strong political support and willingness for change [23,119,125,141,146,306], which may also depend on elections and changes in government [212,312]. A change in power can lead to a lack of priorities, which can affect the co-creation process [146,313]. Political support for co-creation is often unstable and fragmented. Ref. [314] emphasizes that inconsistencies in political support can hinder the development of policies and institutional frameworks necessary to enable co-creation. Political promises, such as affordable housing, often remain unrealized or are delegitimized if there is no continuous pressure from advocates. Conditions are favorable when informed and networked co-creators work together with elected representatives and civil society in different arenas. These co-creators can contribute to strategy formulation and ensure that co-implementation continues beyond the term of a particular political administration. Both co-creation and citizen initiatives are often hindered by a lack of political will and insufficient financial support [1,293]. Nonetheless, public service organizations can proactively mobilize political support by aligning their co-creative activities with supportive legislation and forming strategic alliances with influential networks, high-level politicians and key institutional actors [282].

In authoritative administrative traditions, policy change in favor of co-creation is easier to achieve if the political will to do so exists and is not constrained by regulatory or legal frameworks. In deliberative governance traditions, the shared responsibility of multiple actors means that policy change takes time [198,315]. The policy area or policy field can also be seen as a driver of co-creation. In some domains, there is little scope for co-creation (e.g., in the processing of tax matters, as exchanges between taxpayers and government institutions are sporadic and impersonal), while in other domains, much more is possible (e.g., in social care or healthcare, where interactions are more continuous and relational and there is therefore more scope for co-creation) [316]. Co-creation is therefore appropriate in less defined areas where neither government nor other stakeholders have clear solutions [156]. Although policy changes in favor of co-creation can be more easily achieved in authoritarian administrative traditions, it can be observed that authoritarian administrative traditions with a rule of law culture (e.g., in Germany) are an obstacle to co-creation, but co-creation is still possible, while authoritarian administrative traditions with a public interest culture (e.g., in Estonia) provide a more favorable framework for co-creation [23,134]. Co-creation is typically associated with the New Public Management approach, which focuses on the cross-sectoral level of governance and advocates a pluralistic model of public service that emphasizes the importance of interorganizational relationships, networks, collaborative partnerships and other forms of multi-stakeholder policy making and public action [6]. The problem arises in public services or policies characterized by hierarchical governance, such as the provision of public safety, as co-creation remains a contested approach in these services and policies, leading to conflicting practices and opinions about its appropriateness [134].

Co-creation is also influenced by (poor) fiscal conditions, e.g., in times of global crisis, leading to budgetary constraints and austerity measures at national level [6,316,317,318,319]. An important driver for the co-creation process is also legislation [136,197,313] and the associated legal requirements that form the institutional framework for the measures to be taken [146,150,185,198,300].

An inclusive and participatory legal culture significantly shapes the institutional environment for co-creation. A long-standing tradition of democratic participation is an important factor for co-creation initiatives, but its absence or limited development can lead to superficial or one-off participatory experiences [169]. State and governance traditions have a significant impact on co-creation, as several studies have shown [18,19,22,23]. Contextual factors such as the COVID-19 pandemic have acted as a catalyst, enabling the integration of resources between multiple public service organizations that was previously hindered by regulatory conflicts and different cultures and traditions of customer perception [7,320,321]. Differences in governance traditions shape the institutionalization of co-creation. In Norway, for example, co-creation is more institutionalized and based on traditions of participation, collaboration and consensus orientation, in which citizens participate after a formal invitation by public service providers. In contrast, there is no such tradition in the Spanish public administration context, resulting in a greater reliance on citizen demand as a driver of public service innovation, with Spanish citizens less accustomed to being invited to participate in innovation processes [132]. Co-creating governance systems requires iterative processes with infinite loops to develop shared diagnoses and innovative solutions for governance systems among different actors, which differs from traditional, linear approaches [142,322,323]. Administrative culture also plays an important role, as inclusive cultures foster collaborative structures that are conducive to co-creation, while risk-averse cultures can hinder co-creation as they view citizens mainly as service recipients rather than as partners [1,262]. Realizing the democratic potential of co-creation and ensuring democratic accountability depends on an institutional design that supports broad-based participation, enables tracking and evaluation of outcomes, and maintains strong links to representative democracy [141]. However, a lack of democratic accountability can be costly and sometimes results in public tasks being outsourced to weak communities with insufficient resources [178]. To promote open arenas for co-creation, tools such as thorough stakeholder analysis, flexible process mapping to engage different actors at different stages and procedures that ensure downward social accountability to local constituencies have been recommended [172,324,325,326]. Conversely, traditional bureaucratic regulatory or funding systems can hinder co-creation as they are difficult to reconcile with more open co-creation processes [14,327].

An additional barrier to co-creation can also be excessive bureaucratization, as this can make the process seem too complex and not worth the effort [51]. In the co-creation process, there may be tensions, contradictions or conflicts between competing public values, as external and internal stakeholders do not share the same values and are not in agreement [117,136,198,230,328], which of course does not help to create a favorable environment for co-creation. Of course, the decision to co-create is also greatly facilitated by the support of international organizations (e.g., EU, OECD) [166].

Drivers related to socio-political–legal aspects of the environment in which the organization operates include the following:

• Support and promotion of co-creation by international organizations;
• Strong political will and support for co-creation;
• An institutional environment based on collaboration;
• Debureaucratization of processes;
• Legislation in favor of co-creation (e.g., budget constraints, austerity measures);
• Loose regulatory or legal framework;
• Working in a policy area where there are more opportunities for co-creation;
• Inclusive and participatory legal culture.

In the next subsection, we will present the drivers and barriers of co-creation in the context of digital infrastructure and tools.

4.1.4. Drivers and Barriers Related to Digital Infrastructure and Tools

The introduction of (new) digital technologies, not only as a communication channel or as a medium for information exchange, is often emphasized as a driver that can stimulate and support the co-creation process [126,127,146,177,329,330]. These technologies enable real-time electronic communication across different locations, reducing the need for face-to-face interaction and facilitating stakeholder engagement across spatial and temporal boundaries [331]. The development and adoption of digital technologies has reduced the distances between actors and enabled communication without time and space constraints. Smart devices, artificial intelligence and open and big data are associated with faster decision making, improved efficiency, more personalized solutions and more interactions for the users of a network [114,126,177]. Digital tools also support sophisticated analytics across programs and policy areas and enable remote storage and processing of information, further strengthening the infrastructure for digital collaboration [331]. Digital transformation in public organizations is influenced by the ability to collaborate across organizational boundaries, facilitating standardization and economies of scale in digital governance [332]. However, the possession of adequate digital infrastructure alone does not guarantee active engagement in digital partnership. Empirical studies show that there is a gap between resources and implementation, where technical capacity is not effectively translated into collaborative efforts [333]. This is also reflected in the findings of [334], which finds no significant correlation between existing digital infrastructure and actual commitment to partnerships in local governments, suggesting that digital infrastructure needs to be complemented by organizational readiness and external factors to enable meaningful digital co-creation. Ref. [330] emphasizes that in addition to technological tools, the value of data itself is central to enabling citizen participation in co-creation, and that information sharing is a critical function of ICT in such processes. The interoperability of systems, i.e., the use of standards and best practices that enable the seamless exchange of information between public agencies, is an important driver of networked government [127]. While providing the technical foundation for collaboration, Ref. [334] emphasizes that meaningful digital transformation in public organizations requires a commitment to digitization-oriented collaboration that goes beyond mere interoperability. While new technologies are often presented as enablers of co-creation, their actual impact remains uncertain [194].

In addition to these drivers, Ref. [260] identifies technological barriers such as poorly functioning software and a lack of current technology that hinder participant interaction and group cohesion. This study shows that the selection of commonly used and reliable software is crucial to overcome these barriers and facilitate participation [335,336]. This mindful selection of digital tools supports more effective co-creation processes [337].

Furthermore, socially vulnerable communities characterized by factors such as poverty, socio-demographic status and age are differentially resilient to crises such as natural disasters and pandemics [338]. Telemedicine, which was introduced to enable physical segregation, has led to a segregation of services affecting particularly vulnerable patients. Mental health services are an example of how this segregation can have inequitable effects, as the balance between the co-creation and co-destruction of value is even more delicate for these users than for most public service users [339]. Although telemedicine has become an established healthcare tool, its full impact on vulnerable patients is yet to be seen [340].

In summary, these findings show that while digital infrastructure, including modern digital technologies, system interoperability and real-time communication, provides essential technical opportunities for co-creation, its effectiveness depends on the careful selection of usable tools, up-to-date systems and inclusive designs that overcome technical barriers and support equal participants from all user groups.

Drivers related to digital infrastructure and tools include the following:

• Use of digital technologies;
• Big data;
• Electronic communication in real time;
• Technical advancement in artificial intelligence;
• Advanced data analytics;
• System interoperability;
• Digital data sharing;
• Digital technologies that reduce collaboration and coordination costs;
• Digital technologies that enable real-time citizen participation in co-creation;
• Digital channels that reduce participation barriers linked to physical inaccessibility;
• Mindful selection of technologies appropriate for the co-creation context;
• Software quality;
• Lack of meeting technical requirements;
• Limited access to suitable technology.

In the next subsection, we will present the drivers and barriers of co-creation in the context of digital culture and digital skills.

4.1.5. Drivers and Barriers Related to Digital Culture and Skills

While digital technologies offer new opportunities, they also bring challenges, including the digital divide, (personal) privacy concerns, information security issues, potential misuse of government data and the presence of bias and open data [114,185,194,330]. The digital divide includes both a lack of material access to technology and a limited ability to use it properly [341], as well as varying levels of interest among citizens to learn or improve their technological skills [244]. Citizens may also lack sufficient skills and knowledge to use online public services effectively [342].

To overcome both cultural and technical gaps and resistance to digital transformation, adequate resources and time must be allocated for the initial training of civil servants, economic actors and citizens. Ongoing support is also essential, and new professional roles such as “digital facilitators” can help to ensure smoother adoption of new digital interaction practices [343]. Ref. [344] argues that the use of digital technologies in administration can be productive if civil servants are empowered to think more openly. In the context of participatory urban planning, Ref. [36] found that citizens who participated in person were more engaged and remained engaged during difficult stages of the process.

Ref. [260] emphasizes that engagement in digital co-creation strongly depends on the participants’ interaction with the software and the group dynamics. Unbalanced dynamics in digital environments can limit participants’ opportunities to express their views [336,345]. Effective facilitation, which requires both digital skills and cultural competence, is crucial for engaging diverse citizen groups and ensuring an equitable distribution of power in co-creation processes [346,347,348]. Ref. [260] also warns against tokenism in digital co-creation and emphasizes the importance of fostering genuine shared knowledge and empowerment among participants [349,350].

The openness of the organization to external impulses and demands from stakeholders is an important motivation for digital transformation and collaboration [351,352]. Ref. [334] confirms this by showing that external stimuli such as crises and stakeholder expectations have a stronger influence on digital collaboration than internal factors such as legal frameworks or digital mindsets. At the same time, bureaucratic inertia remains a significant obstacle, as public organizations can resist change despite technical readiness. In addition, overconfidence in internal digital skills can lead to a lower perception of the need to collaborate, which in turn hinders innovation.

To support innovation in digital co-creation, public sector organizations need to foster a culture that encourages openness, experimentation and a willingness to learn from mistakes. Ref. [353] argues that public sector organizations should pursue a long-term vision in which reflection and learning are highly valued and in which experimentation and tolerance of small mistakes are encouraged as an opportunity to acquire knowledge. This view is supported by [115], which emphasizes that fostering a culture of learning from mistakes contributes to a greater willingness to innovate. Ref. [152] also suggests that co-creation processes should remain open-ended to accommodate citizen input and leave room for experimentation and failure, provided they are based on trust and effective engagement.

Ref. [334] provides empirical evidence that overconfidence in an organization’s digital competence can reduce problem awareness and hinder collaboration, highlighting the importance of institutional humility and openness. As [332] points out, collaboration across boundaries facilitates the development of innovative solutions, and Ref. [211] highlights the importance of early and iterative stakeholder engagement throughout the policy process. Taken together, these findings highlight that innovative thinking and a willingness to learn from mistakes are important factors of a digital culture that are conducive to effective and inclusive co-creation.

These findings emphasize the importance of a supportive culture, recognition of institutional boundaries and openness to external influences for successful digital co-creation.

Drivers related to digital culture and skills include the following:

• Positive attitude towards digitalization and agile work practices;
• Openness to modern technologies;
• Innovative thinking;
• Positive error culture in relation to digitalization efforts;
• Training in the use of (new) digital technologies;
• Cultural competency when working with diverse citizen groups;
• Digital divide in terms of skills in using software with personal hardware;
• Unbalanced dynamics and distraction risks;
• Distraction of citizens from engaging in face-to-face participation.

In the next subsection, we will present the drivers and barriers of co-creation in the context of governance and strategic support.

4.1.6. Drivers and Barriers Related to Governance and Strategic Support

According to [114,330], the extent to which governments are able to mitigate the risks associated with digital co-creation depends on numerous internal and external factors. These include leadership, political commitment, supportive policy frameworks, the state of technological infrastructure and the inclusivity of online platforms and channels. Ref. [330] also points out that governments that use ICT to support co-creation and open up to citizen contributions face uncertainties about the quality of contributions and the inevitable implementation costs associated with these efforts.

In the context of Open Government Data (OGD), the legal environment plays an important role in shaping digital co-creation. Issues such as intellectual property rights, data protection and licensing affect the ability of public organizations to share datasets that would otherwise be of public interest or to support new business models [203]. While laws such as the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the California Consumer Privacy Act impose privacy obligations on data controllers [354], misinterpretations of these regulations can lead public officials to be overly cautious. This is particularly problematic when the data relates to small populations or when officials do not know how to anonymize sensitive data [203]. Favorable copyright and licensing frameworks, as well as legal clarity and training, can enable more effective openness of data. Strategic policies such as the European Public Sector Information Directive promote an open-by-default model, even if implementation is still patchy [146]. These findings emphasize the importance of aligning political support with the institutional capacity to interpret and apply the legal framework.

Ref. [342] notes that digital technologies can reduce the need for direct interaction between government and stakeholders, but at the same time bring new capacity-related and technical challenges to the management and governance of these technologies. The authors also emphasize that new technologies may not be integrated into citizens’ daily routines due to a lack of e-governance culture and interest [355].

Similarly, Ref. [250] warns that the digitalization of public services is recontextualizing the co-creation of services in a cyber-physical environment. This change may impair rather than facilitate the relationship between users and providers and make it more difficult to build genuine partnerships between citizens and public service providers [58]. Furthermore, the authors argue that the virtualization of public service spaces can create subtle forms of inequality, particularly for groups with lower digital confidence or access. If not managed properly, this can increase the risk of privileging already privileged groups and ultimately undermine the value-creating capabilities of public sector organizations [356].

Digital transformation in public organizations is often driven by external and cross-boundary actors that stimulate new forms of co-creation of value, even if full power sharing is not achieved [62]. Cross-organizational collaboration facilitates the development of innovative solutions to digital governance challenges and supports the reintegration of actors across organizational boundaries [60,332]. Ref. [334] empirically supports these findings by showing that the digital transformation of municipalities is largely triggered by external stimuli, including citizen demand and crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic. This is in line with broader research that identifies crises as windows of opportunity for reform [7,357,358,359,360]. In addition, the presence of digital change agents and a participatory culture has been shown to support the progress of digital governance [351]. However, financial and human resource constraints remain significant barriers to the collaborative change necessary for effective digital co-creation [334,361]. These collaborative processes are crucial to overcome the limitations of technical investments and to promote digital co-creation in public administration. The demands of external stakeholders and citizens continue to be a strong driver for digital collaboration in public organizations [352].

While the organizational and technical challenges related to the implementation of advanced digital technologies do not directly impact co-creation processes, they do influence the ability of governments to effectively use digital tools to support co-creation. In this context, Ref. [343] emphasizes that the adoption of advanced digital technologies requires adequate technical expertise and corresponding financial resources to set up, adapt and maintain the digital infrastructure. Furthermore, the authors point out that legal and fiscal analysis may be required to assess how emerging technologies such as blockchain will impact existing national accounting and fiscal legislation, which in many cases is still underdeveloped for dealing with token-based systems. As a result, administrative procedures may need to be updated accordingly to reflect these technological advances.

These risks are particularly acute in the healthcare sector, where virtualization poses both organizational and legal challenges. Ref. [340] highlights how healthcare professionals, separated from traditional service delivery for the first time, must simultaneously manage their own digital transformation and ensure the wellbeing of vulnerable patients. This study highlights the need for strategic responses that go beyond generic recommendations. Similarly, Ref. [362] emphasizes that the public value of co-creation emerges over time, particularly when vulnerable groups are supported through inclusive and adaptive governance approaches.

Drivers related to governance and strategic support include the following:

• A strong push for an open and innovative government;
• Growing political support for data protection and privacy;
• Costs for implementation of digital co-creation infrastructure (e.g., initial funding, project launch);
• Costs for adaptation and maintenance (e.g., ongoing platform upkeep, technical support, updates);
• Governance capacity to manage relational challenges in digital service transformation;
• Strategic readiness to mitigate equity risks of service virtualization (e.g., digital divides, unequal access).

In the next subsection, we will present the drivers and barriers of co-creation in the context of the co-creation process and design.

4.1.7. Drivers and Barriers Related to Co-Creation Process and Design

According to [331], digital technologies not only support the implementation of co-creation, but also change its structure. Refs. [363,364] emphasize that ICTs can be used to ensure effective citizen participation by enabling co-creation, prototyping and experimentation. The authors argue that e-participation, supported by the capacity and capability building of both public institutions and citizens themselves, can lead to real and sustainable change in participatory governance. Digital technologies facilitate the prototyping of services and enable iterative design and experimentation in the development of public services. They also make it possible to no longer view citizens as mere end-users, but to involve them as active co-creators in the service delivery process. Furthermore, such technologies support community-level interaction by connecting citizens to each other and to local issues, thus promoting awareness and collective action.

Ref. [102] emphasizes the importance of process management and facilitation, highlighting the whole co-creative process. The authors argue that creating digital and non-digital environments where inclusion is considered throughout the co-creation cycle can succeed through a careful meta-design and facilitation of the process that consider both the accessibility and interaction perspectives of inclusion.

Furthermore, Ref. [126] highlights that ICT-enabled technologies offer opportunities for more personalized services and improved interaction for users within a network. In the context of healthcare, Ref. [177] notes that these technologies have enabled tailored treatment and disease management, with smart devices supporting fast, patient-driven decision making. From a co-creation perspective, Ref. [337] explains that simplification and tailoring create different expectations of the citizen encounter. While simplification adds value by making the service easier to use, it also limits the possibility of meaningful interaction and requires extensive standardization. In contrast, tailoring requires the service to be differentiated according to the citizen and their needs, which may require extensive interactions to tailor the service to each individual.

However, Ref. [36] notes that while citizen participation and co-creation through social media have been effective in raising public awareness and commercializing an urban development project, they may not lead to changes in the existing institutional environment or governance practices.

Ref. [260] emphasizes that tailored digital services can empower citizens [337], while [58] found that digital technologies diversify co-creation practices. There are forms of co-creation that can be easily digitized, but the opposite may be true for some other forms [337,365]. Building on these findings, Ref. [340] identifies critical steps in the value creation process related to the delivery of telemedicine services. This study’s findings provide practical guidance for practitioners to improve service delivery at key moments when the balance between co-creation and co-destruction of value may shift, emphasizing the dynamic and sensitive nature of digital co-creation in healthcare.

Drivers related to co-creation process and design include the following:

• Increasing inclusion of citizens in public decision making;
• Building and testing prototypes;
• Personalized solutions through technology.

In the following section, we will decompose the organizational readiness problem into its key dimensions and construct a hierarchical decision model that allows us to systematically assess the relevant drivers and barriers.

4.2. Step 2: Specification of Decision Objectives and Requirements (Problem Decomposition)

In Section 4.1, with its subsections, we presented the raw data on the drivers and barriers of co-creation identified through a systematic content analysis of the scientific literature indexed from the Web of Science (WoS). This analysis serves as the basis for the development of a structured model that can be operationalized for decision support classification. Through an iterative refinement process, we identified 81 different criteria relevant for assessing an organization’s readiness for co-creation and for classifying organizations into readiness classes.

We deepen the work of [24] by introducing additional categories related to the digital aspect, as well as incorporating updated drivers and barriers from the recent literature. This expansion is in response to the emerging evidence that digital infrastructure, culture and governance influence the success of co-creation initiatives in the public sector.

These 81 criteria are organized into two main categories and seven subcategories that reflect the dual nature of co-creation in today’s public administration—traditional and digital. The final structure is as follows (see Figure 3):

• Category 1: Readiness of the organization for traditional co-creation
• 1.1. Organizational or structural aspect;
• 1.2. Individual or stakeholder aspect;
• 1.3. Socio-political–legal aspect of the environment in which the organization operates.
• Category 2: Readiness of the organization for digital co-creation
• 2.1. Digital infrastructure and tools;
• 2.2. Digital culture and skills;
• 2.3. Governance and strategic support;
• 2.4. Co-creation process and design.

Each of these subcategories comprises a set of refined, operationalized criteria that reflect drivers and barriers that influence the implementation of co-creation in public organizations.

To arrive at the final list, we conducted a systematic review and consolidation of the drivers and barriers initially identified. These included the following:

• Merging conceptually similar elements, such as the following:

  ○

  Combining solidarity incentives and materialistic incentives into a unified criterion: Incentive system in place [151,303];

  ○

  Combining flat organizational structure, toned down power differences and informal horizontal authority based on relational attributes and leadership capacity into a unified criterion: Flat structure [139,141,142];

  ○

  Combining the importance of including silent voices and avoiding participatory selection biases (e.g., only the elite) and participation bias favoring specific groups into a unified criterion: Strategies in place to mobilize and motivate external stakeholders (including hard-to-reach and marginalized ones) [175,176,250,366].

• Aligning semantic opposites, such as the following:

  ○

  Transparency, continual efforts, building cross-sector networks and lack of transparency into a unified criterion: Transparency culture [187,189,220,367].

  ○

  Developing shared goals and actors lacking a shared strategy for wider innovation into a unified criterion: Shared strategic objectives [149,159,167,174].

  ○

  Elimination of duplicates and ambiguous formulations: consolidation involved grouping duplicate or ambiguously formulated drivers and barriers identified in different sources under a single criterion to avoid redundancy and improve clarity.

• Standardization of terminology to ensure clarity and usability of the model:

  ○

  Terminology was harmonized to ensure conceptual clarity and consistency throughout the model by minimizing ambiguity and facilitating clear understanding for both decision makers and researchers. This included harmonizing synonyms, choosing consistent wording and adopting commonly accepted terms from the literature.

In addition, we excluded drivers and barriers that could not be meaningfully assessed by the decision makers. In particular, two categories of potential drivers and barriers were deliberately and intentionally omitted:

• First, drivers and barriers related to characteristics, motivation and perceptions of external stakeholders (e.g., citizens, third sector organizations) were not included, as such aspects are outside the direct knowledge and influence of public managers and therefore cannot be meaningfully assessed when evaluating organizational readiness.
• Second, factors related to the quality of relationships between co-creators (such as mutual trust and the quality of collaboration) were not considered, as these factors do not reflect inherent organizational capacities, but rather emerge within the dynamics of a particular co-creation process. The model therefore focuses exclusively on the internal characteristics and capacities of public organizations that can be assessed prior to engaging in co-creation.

Importantly, this refined structure builds on the validated decision model of [24], which includes 30 empirically grounded criteria for co-creation readiness. This earlier model served as the basis for the traditional co-creation categories (1.1–1.3). Our work extends this structure in two important ways:

• First, we broadened the empirical base by including 51 additional criteria, of which 19 were assigned to the category of traditional co-creation and 32 to the category of digital co-creation.
• Second, we introduced a separate category for digital readiness (2.1–2.4), which was missing from the original model and has become essential for public organizations due to the ongoing digital transformation of public service delivery.

Taken together, these extensions go beyond a direct adoption of [24] by broadening the empirical scope of the model and explicitly modeling digital readiness.

To further improve readability and provide a concise overview of the model,

Table 1. Overview of the co-creation readiness model developed in this study.

Main Categories	Subcategories	Criteria in Validated Model [24]	New Criteria Added in This Study	Total Criteria
Readiness of the organization for traditional co-creation (1.1–1.3)	3	30	19	49
Readiness of the organization for digital co-creation (2.1–2.4)	4	/	32	32
Total	7	30	51	81

presents its structure in terms of main categories, subcategories and criteria. In addition, a distinction is made between elements originating from the previously validated model and those that were newly introduced in this study. This overview complements the detailed description in the text and allows the reader to quickly grasp the scope and contribution of the revised framework.

The result is a comprehensive, non-redundant and operationally assessable set of 81 criteria reflecting both the traditional and digital dimensions of organizational co-creation readiness. These criteria serve as input attributes for the DEX-based decision support system in this study.

The identified criteria form the basis of a decision model for assessing an organization’s readiness for co-creation. These criteria were hierarchically structured into two main categories and seven subcategories that reflect the dual nature of co-creation: traditional and digital. Figure 3 presents the overall tree structure of the model, showing its main categories and subcategories (first and second levels). The more detailed third and fourth levels, aggregated attributes and specific criteria, are not included in this figure. The tree structure follows a strict hierarchical logic in which each subordinate attribute influences only one superordinate attribute [82].

A detailed list and description of the refined criteria for each subcategory can be found in Appendix A, starting with subcategory 1.1.1:

• Table A1. Criteria for subcategory 1.1.1. Organizational or structural aspect.

  Aggregated Criterion	Basic Criterion	Description
  1.1.1.1. Communication	1.1.1.1.1. Encouraging two-way communication, with an emphasis on receiving feedback and criticism	The organization has established mechanisms or platforms for regular, direct and two-way communication with external stakeholders, including arrangements for receiving and acting on feedback.
  	1.1.1.1.2. Strategies in place to mobilize and motivate external stakeholders (including hard-to-reach and marginalized ones)	The organization has defined strategies or practices aimed at actively engaging external stakeholders, including efforts to reach marginalized or hard-to-reach groups beyond basic legal obligations.
  	1.1.1.1.3. Evidence of formal evaluation of the positive impact of co-creation	The organization has established mechanisms to collect evidence or conduct formal evaluations to assess the impact of co-creation activities.
  	1.1.1.1.4. Trust-building dialog	The organization engages in structured dialog with external stakeholders aimed at building mutual trust and reducing hierarchical distance.
  	1.1.1.1.5. Transparency culture	The organization promotes a culture of transparency by openly sharing information about co-creation processes and outcomes so that stakeholders can monitor and participate with confidence.
  1.1.1.2. Structural characteristics of the organization	1.1.1.2.1. Readiness to change the existing organizational structure	The organization demonstrates a willingness to adapt its internal structure, e.g., by improving integration, collaboration, processes or resource allocation, to better support the implementation of co-creation.
  	1.1.1.2.2. Network governance, less centralized and highly connected groups	The organization operates through a networked governance model that is characterized by strong connections between units and enables regular collaboration and a seamless exchange of information and knowledge across organizational boundaries.
  	1.1.1.2.3 Promoting a culture of collaboration with all stakeholders	The organization promotes a culture of collaboration by promoting inclusive engagement practices that involve both internal and external stakeholders and enable coordinated efforts.
  	1.1.1.2.4. Readiness for cultural change (e.g., changing priorities, incentives, assumptions and expectations)	The organization demonstrates a willingness to reconsider and adjust priorities, incentives and expectations arising from collaboration with other stakeholders.
  	1.1.1.2.5. Flat structures	A flat organizational structure minimizes hierarchical levels, reduces bureaucratic distance and promotes inclusive, flexible co-creation by encouraging participation and personal commitment at all levels.
  1.1.1.3. Co-creation objectives	1.1.1.3.1. Clearly defined vision and objectives	A clearly defined vision and set of objectives provide direction for the organization’s co-creation initiatives and ensure that all internal and external stakeholders understand the purpose and objectives.
  	1.1.1.3.2. Use of flexible solutions instead of one-size-fits-all	The organization demonstrates the ability to move beyond one-size-fits-all solutions by applying flexible approaches tailored to the specific needs, circumstances and capacities of different stakeholders.
  	1.1.1.3.3. Shared strategic objectives	The organization has clearly defined and mutually agreed-upon strategic objectives for co-creation that are regularly reviewed and adjusted in collaboration with internal and external stakeholders. These objectives ensure coherence, reduce conflict and guide the co-creation process.
  	1.1.1.3.4. Iterative strategic planning	The organization systematically reviews its co-creation strategies and adjusts them based on participant feedback and changing conditions to ensure continued relevance and responsiveness.
  	1.1.1.3.5. Adaptive innovation capacity	The organization encourages experimentation, feedback-based learning and collaborative problem solving to continuously adapt and improve co-created services.
  1.1.1.4. Organizational resources and incentives	1.1.1.4.1. Sufficient financial resources	The organization has a sufficient financial capacity to provide resources not only for its standard activities but also to support collaborative and co-creation activities.
  	1.1.1.4.2. Sufficient human resources	The organization has adequate human resources to participate effectively in co-creation processes in addition to its regular tasks.
  	1.1.1.4.3. Incentive system in place (includes solidarity-based and financial/personal incentives)	The organization supports co-creation through a structured incentive system that may include recognition, rewards or resource-based support for all participants.
  	1.1.1.4.4. Strategic planning capacity	The organization is able to plan realistically, allocate resources and adapt structures to support co-creation, including with vulnerable groups and non-traditional engagement formats.

  : Criteria for subcategory 1.1.1. Organizational or structural aspect;
• Table A2. Criteria for subcategory 1.1.2. Individual or stakeholder aspect.

  Aggregated Criterion	Basic Criterion	Description
  1.1.2.1. Attitudes towards co-creation	1.1.2.1.1. Readiness to change the mindset of public servants	The organization supports a working environment in which public servants are encouraged to rethink existing routines, think innovatively and adopt a collaborative mindset guided by the principles of co-creation.
  	1.1.2.1.2. Readiness to change attitudes towards external stakeholders	Public servants have changed their attitude towards recognizing external stakeholders as active contributors to co-creation processes and not just as passive recipients of services.
  	1.1.2.1.3. A strong leader with a role as an advocate for co-creation	A strong leader has a clear vision and sufficient management capacity to effectively advocate for and support co-creation initiatives within the organization.
  	1.1.2.1.4. Reflective organizational mindset	The organization is willing to critically reflect on its own practices, challenge existing assumptions and adapt its actions based on feedback and mutual learning during the co-creation process.
  	1.1.2.1.5. Empowerment and openness	The organization empowers all stakeholders to meaningfully participate in co-creation and demonstrates openness by fostering trust, distributing authority and creating an inclusive space for collaboration.
  	1.1.2.1.6. Positive error culture	The organization supports a culture in which civil or public servants are encouraged to openly admit mistakes, learn from them and experiment without fear of negative consequences in order to promote continuous improvement in co-creation.
  1.1.2.2. Collaboration	1.1.2.2.1. Ability to propose ideas related to community development	Civil or public servants demonstrate the ability to recognize and actively propose ideas that contribute to the development of and improvement in the community.
  	1.1.2.2.2. Readiness and ability to participate in the co-creation process	Civil or public servants demonstrate both the willingness and the ability to actively participate in co-creation processes.
  	1.1.2.2.3. Ability to recognize the value of co-creation	Civil or public servants recognize the benefits of co-creation and see collaboration with external stakeholders as a valuable approach to improving policies and service proposals.
  	1.1.2.2.4. Capacity building for co-creation	The organization invests in capacity building by providing stakeholders with access to knowledge, skills and institutional resources that enable meaningful participation in co-creation processes.
  	1.1.2.2.5. Leveraging community knowledge	The organization recognizes and uses community-specific knowledge, such as local skills, values and cultural or socio-economic context, to design co-creation processes that are relevant and inclusive.
  	1.1.2.2.6. Motivation recognition	The organization actively considers what motivates citizens and public servants to engage in co-creation, including intrinsic and extrinsic factors.
  	1.1.2.2.7. Facilitating co-creation forums	The organization promotes structured and inclusive spaces that enable open dialog, trust-building and collaborative problem solving between different stakeholders.
  1.1.2.3. Knowledge and skills	1.1.2.3.1. Soft skills by public servants	Civil or public servants have strong interpersonal skills, including empathetic listening, building two-way relationships and effectively managing conflict with external stakeholders.
  	1.1.2.3.2. A skilled leader who builds the trust of external stakeholders	A civil or public servant demonstrates the ability to build and maintain trust with external stakeholders by actively engaging with their concerns and encouraging their participation in co-creation processes.
  	1.1.2.3.3. Training or education for public servant to co-create	The public organization provides regular and systematic training and education for civil or public servants, equipping them with the skills necessary for effective co-creation.
  	1.1.2.3.4. Institutional experience	The organization has demonstrable experience and expertise in co-creation, as well as knowledgeable staff and adequate resources to effectively support co-creation activities.
  	1.1.2.3.5. Innovation receptivity	The organization is open and receptive to innovation and embraces experimentation, adaptation and new practices despite institutional or political constraints.
  1.1.2.4. Autonomy	1.1.2.4.1. Sufficient time or workload for co-creation	Civil or public servants have sufficient time and a manageable workload to enable meaningful participation in co-creation activities.
  	1.1.2.4.2. Autonomy in decision making	Civil or public servants have sufficient autonomy in decision making powers to independently perform their tasks, which facilitates effective engagement in co-creation processes.
  	1.1.2.4.3. Boundary-crossing collaboration capacity	The organization collaborates sustainably across organizational, sectoral and institutional boundaries to address complex public problems by sharing resources and solving problems together.
  	1.1.2.4.4. Non-hierarchical leadership	Leaders in the organization promote co-creation by building legitimacy through soft power and relational influence rather than relying on formal hierarchical authority.

  : Criteria for subcategory 1.1.2. Individual or stakeholder aspect;
• Table A3. Criteria for subcategory 1.1.3. Socio-political–legal aspects of the environment in which the organization operates.

  Aggregated Criterion	Basic Criterion	Description
  1.1.3.1. Operating environment	1.1.3.1.1. Support and promotion of co-creation by international organizations	The public organization demonstrates active engagement in international co-creation projects or initiatives, reflecting external support and promotion of co-creation practices.
  	1.1.3.1.2. Strong political will and support for co-creation	There is a strong political commitment at all levels of government to prioritize and support collaboration with external stakeholders as part of co-creation efforts.
  	1.1.3.1.3. An institutional environment based on collaboration	The organizational environment fosters true collaboration by integrating co-creation as a standard practice in policy making and moving beyond minimal legal consultation to active stakeholder participation.
  1.1.3.2. Legislative and governance culture	1.1.3.2.1. Debureaucratization of processes	The organization minimizes the administrative burden by streamlining formal procedures and allowing processes to be implemented flexibly according to the requirements of each situation.
  	1.1.3.2.2. Legislation in favor of co-creation (e.g., budget constraints, austerity measures)	The legal framework enables and encourages collaborative practices by removing restrictive constraints (e.g., austerity measures, rigid budgeting), fostering an environment conducive to co-creation.
  	1.1.3.2.3. Loose regulatory or legal framework	The regulatory or legal framework provides sufficient flexibility and discretion for public organizations to adapt their procedures and collaborate with external stakeholders in co-creation processes.
  	1.1.3.2.4. Working in a policy area where there are more opportunities for co-creation	The organization operates in a policy area (e.g., healthcare and social care) that is inherently more enabling and conducive to collaborative, stakeholder-inclusive approaches.
  	1.1.3.2.5. Inclusive and participatory legal culture	The legal and administrative culture supports broad, inclusive participation and promotes co-creation through transparent processes, participatory traditions and institutionalized accountability mechanisms.

  : Criteria for subcategory 1.1.3. Socio-political–legal aspect of the environment in which the organization operates;
• Table A4. Criteria for subcategory 1.2.1. Digital infrastructure and tools.

  Aggregated Criterion	Basic Criterion	Description
  1.2.1.1. Use of modern digital technologies	1.2.1.1.1. Use of digital technologies	The organization actively uses a variety of digital technologies that go beyond basic communication to support and improve co-creation processes with stakeholders.
  	1.2.1.1.2. Big data	The organization accesses and uses large-scale, diverse datasets, including open data, to improve decision making and support co-creation.
  	1.2.1.1.3. Electronic communication in real time	The organization has digital tools that enable electronic communication and coordination in real time across spatial and temporal boundaries.
  	1.2.1.1.4. Technical advancement in artificial intelligence	The organization uses artificial intelligence technologies to support personalized services, increase efficiency and improve interaction between stakeholders in co-creation processes.
  	1.2.1.1.5. Advanced data analytics	The organization uses advanced analytical methods to analyze data and enable efficient, well-founded co-creation.
  1.2.1.2. System interoperability and data sharing	1.2.1.2.1. System interoperability	The organization uses standardized and interoperable systems that enable a seamless and secure exchange of information with other public institutions.
  	1.2.1.2.2. Digital data sharing	The organization actively shares and uses data as part of co-creation processes because it recognizes data as an important prerequisite for informed citizen participation.
  1.2.1.3. Real-time and remote digital communications	1.2.1.3.1. Digital technologies that reduce collaboration and coordination costs	The organization uses digital technologies that reduce the time, effort and cost of coordinating and collaborating with internal and external stakeholders.
  	1.2.1.3.2. Digital technologies that enable real-time citizen participation in co-creation	Digital platforms are used to facilitate the direct, interactive involvement of citizens in co-creation processes.
  	1.2.1.3.3. Digital channels that reduce participation barriers linked to physical inaccessibility	The organization uses digital channels to ensure that people who are subject to physical, geographical or mobility-related restrictions can also participate in co-creation.
  1.2.1.4. Software quality and mindful tool selection	1.2.1.4.1. Mindful selection of technologies appropriate for the co-creation context	The organization selects digital tools that are context-appropriate, user-friendly and frequently used by target stakeholders to ensure broad and effective participation in co-creation.
  	1.2.1.4.2. Software quality	The digital platforms and tools used for co-creation function reliably and are of sufficient technical quality to support smooth participation and group interaction.
  1.2.1.5. Technical limitations and outdated systems	1.2.1.5.1. Lack of meeting technical requirements	The organization ensures that the digital co-creation tools and processes are supported by appropriate technical capacities.
  	1.2.1.5.2. Limited access to suitable technology	Citizens or stakeholders participating in co-creation processes have access to the necessary digital devices and tools required for meaningful participation.

  : Criteria for subcategory 1.2.1. Digital infrastructure and tools;
• Table A5. Criteria for subcategory 1.2.2. Digital culture and skills.

  Aggregated Criterion	Basic Criterion	Description
  1.2.2.1. Openness to innovation and agile culture	1.2.2.1.1. Positive attitude towards digitalization and agile work practices	The organization demonstrates openness to digital transformation and responsiveness to the needs of external stakeholders through agile and adaptive working methods.
  	1.2.2.1.2. Openness to modern technologies	Civil or public servants are open to the use of digital tools in administrative and participatory processes.
  	1.2.2.1.3. Innovative thinking	The organization supports experimental approaches, cross-boundary collaboration and reflection as part of innovation in digital co-creation.
  	1.2.2.1.4. Positive error culture in relation to digitalization efforts	The organization encourages experimentation and accepts small failures as part of innovation in digital co-creation. Mistakes are seen as opportunities to learn and adapt digital tools and approaches in collaboration with citizens.
  1.2.2.2. Digital skills and cultural competency	1.2.2.2.1. Training in the use of (new) digital technologies	The organization provides structured training and ongoing support to enable both internal employees and external participants to effectively use new digital technologies for co-creation.
  	1.2.2.2.2. Cultural competency when working with diverse citizen groups	The organization actively promotes cultural competence and inclusivity when working with different groups of citizens in digital co-creation contexts.
  	1.2.2.2.3. Digital divide in terms of skills in using software with personal hardware	Citizens have sufficient digital skills and access to compatible personal devices to participate effectively in digital co-creation processes.
  1.2.2.3. Unbalanced dynamics and distraction risks	1.2.2.3.1. Unbalanced group dynamics in digital modes of co-creation	The organization actively ensures that digital co-creation processes are facilitated in a way that prevents unbalanced group dynamics and promotes equal participation.
  	1.2.2.3.2. Distraction of citizens from engaging in face-to-face participation	Digital co-creation practices complement, rather than replace, face-to-face engagement opportunities, maintaining deep and inclusive participation.

  : Criteria for subcategory 1.2.2. Digital culture and skills;
• Table A6. Criteria for subcategory 1.2.3. Governance and strategic support.

  Aggregated Criterion	Basic Criterion	Description
  1.2.3.1. Political and strategic support for digital government	1.2.3.1.1. A strong push for an open and innovative government	The organization demonstrates clear political and strategic leadership that is committed to open government, transparency and innovation, and actively promotes a collaborative digital government that is responsive to the needs of citizens and stakeholders.
  	1.2.3.1.2. Growing political support for data protection and privacy	Political leadership actively supports data protection and privacy policies and frameworks that ensure responsible data management in co-creation.
  1.2.3.2. Financial and technical resources for digital co-creation	1.2.3.2.1. Costs for implementation of digital co-creation (e.g., initial funding, project launch)	The organization ensures adequate initial funding and resources for the implementation of digital co-creation platforms and infrastructures and ensures that the basic technical setup and project start-up phases are fully supported.
  	1.2.3.2.2. Costs for adaptation and maintenance (e.g., ongoing platform upkeep, technical support, updates)	The organization provides ongoing financial resources and technical support for continuous customization, platform maintenance, software updates and technical troubleshooting to effectively maintain its digital co-creation tools over time.
  1.2.3.3. Strategic governance risks in digital service transformation	1.2.3.3.1. Governance capacity to manage relational challenges in digital service transformation	The organization has effective governance structures and management capabilities to address challenges in the relationships caused by digital services.
  	1.2.3.3.2. Strategic readiness to mitigate equity risks of service virtualization (e.g., digital divides, unequal access)	The organization has strategies and resources in place to identify and address the inequalities caused by the virtualization of digital services, including the digital divide and unequal access.

  : Criteria for subcategory 1.2.3. Governance and strategic support;
• Table A7. Criteria for subcategory 1.2.4. Co-creation process and design.

  Basic Criterion	Description
  1.2.4.1. Increasing inclusion of citizens in public decision making	The organization uses digital and non-digital means to actively and sustainably promote the involvement of diverse citizens in the public decision making process.
  1.2.4.2. Building and testing prototypes	The organization supports iterative prototyping and experimentation as part of the co-creation process, enabling continuous improvement in services.
  1.2.4.3. Personalized solutions through technology	The organization uses ICT to provide digital services tailored to the individual needs of users, striking a balance between simplification and meaningful interaction.

  : Criteria for subcategory 1.2.4. Co-creation process and design. This subcategory does not contain any aggregated criteria, as it consists of only three basic criteria.

Due to the number of basic attributes, we grouped them into numerous aggregated attributes. The decision maker only assesses the values of the basic attributes, while the values of the aggregated attributes are obtained from the utility functions of the decision model. The final assessment of the organization, i.e., the value of the organization’s readiness to co-create, results from the utility functions defined for all higher-level elements (aggregated attributes, subcategories, categories and the root of the tree). The final classification of the organizations in the test set data is performed using the bottom-up merging approach, where only the scores for the basic attributes are predicted based on the training data for each aggregated category. Figure A1, Figure A2, Figure A3, Figure A4, Figure A5, Figure A6, Figure A7 and Figure A8 (see Appendix C) also show the overall structure of the model, with the basic attributes shown in orange rectangles, the aggregated attributes in yellow rectangles, the seven subcategories in gray rectangles, and the two main categories in blue rectangles. The colors of the rectangles were chosen subjectively and have no influence on the structure of the model.

4.3. Step 3: Design and Development of the Decision Model (Model Construction in DEXi)

First, the presented problem structure was modeled with the computer program DEXi [368]. Second, the scale for all basic and aggregated attributes was defined. The scale for all basic attributes is “No/Yes”, which means that the decision maker can choose a value of “No” or “Yes” for each basic attribute, where “No” is a bad value and “Yes” is a good value. The scale for all aggregated attributes and subcategories is “Bad/Neutral/Good”. Each aggregated attribute and subcategory is assigned one of these values based on the rules or utility functions presented in the form of decision tables. The scale for two categories is “Very bad/Bad/Neutral/Good/Very good”. The scale for the top attribute, which represents the organization’s readiness for co-creation, is “Very bad/Bad/Somewhat bad/Neutral/Somewhat good/Good/Very good”. One of these values is placed on the top aggregated attribute and this final value tells the decision maker how ready the assessed organization is for co-creation.

The decision maker simply selects an appropriate value for each basic attribute, and based on their selection, a decision model using utility functions “calculates” the assessed value, i.e., the readiness of the public organization for co-creation.

Table A8. Operationalization of No/Yes values for all basic criteria in category “Readiness of the organization for traditional co-creation”.

Criterion	No	Yes
Encouraging two-way communication, with an emphasis on receiving feedback and criticism	The public organization does not have a means of regular and direct communication with external stakeholders, so communication still takes place by email or telephone.	The public organization fosters two-way communication through established practices or platforms that enable regular and direct communication with external stakeholders.
Strategies in place to mobilize and motivate external stakeholders (including hard-to-reach and marginalized ones)	The public organization engages with the public only as required by law and makes no additional effort to engage with external stakeholders.	The public organization has contact with external stakeholders and has developed strategies to mobilize hard-to-reach and marginalized groups.
Evidence or formal evaluation of the positive impact of co-creation	The public organization has no data or means of evaluating the impact of co-creation.	The public organization has a clear idea of the effects of co-creation.
Trust-building dialog	Leaders and managers maintain hierarchical and distanced communication with external stakeholders and avoid open or constructive dialog, which leads to a lack of trust and collaboration.	Leaders and managers actively engage in trust-building dialog with external stakeholders, reduce hierarchical distance and promote open, transparent and constructive interactions that build shared understanding and commitment.
Transparency culture	The public organization does not provide accessible information about co-creation processes or outcomes, which limits stakeholders’ ability to monitor or engage, leading to low trust and exclusion.	The public organization actively ensures transparency by disclosing relevant information about co-creation processes and outcomes, enabling stakeholder oversight, fostering trust and promoting inclusive participation.
Readiness to change the existing organizational structure	The public organization sees no need to change its organizational structure.	Measures have already been taken to improve the organizational structure (in terms of integration and collaboration), processes or resources for a better implementation of co-creation.
Network governance, less centralized and highly connected groups	The organizational units in a public organization are not connected or separated from each other and therefore do not have adequate means to collaborate or share information and knowledge on a regular basis.	The public organization has highly networked organizational units that have neither material nor immaterial barriers to collaboration and the exchange of information or knowledge.
Promoting a culture of collaboration with all stakeholders	The organization still follows a “traditional” or top-down approach, where command and control is the standard operating method.	The organization promotes the regular involvement of internal (from all organizational units and levels) and external stakeholders in policy development.
Readiness for cultural change (e.g., changing priorities, incentives, assumptions and expectations)	The public organization tries to use its influence to convince other stakeholders that the objectives of the project do not need to be changed.	The organization is willing to change and adapt its original objectives based on cooperation with other stakeholders.
Flat structures	The organization has a traditional bureaucratic structure with rigid hierarchies, administrative silos and limited cross-boundary collaboration, which limits participation in co-creation.	The organization is characterized by a flat hierarchy with a low power distance and promotes dialogic governance practices that enable broad participation and relational leadership that supports co-creation.
Clearly defined vision and objectives	The vision and objectives are not clearly defined.	The vision and objectives are clearly defined, known and accepted by everyone involved.
Use of flexible solutions instead of one-size-fits-all	The organization applies one-size-fits-all solutions and does not respond to the different needs and conditions of certain social groups.	The organization tailors solutions to the needs and requirements of all stakeholders.
Shared strategic objectives	The organization lacks clear and shared strategic goals for co-creation, leading to fragmented efforts, misunderstandings and misalignment between stakeholders.	The organization has collaboratively developed and communicated strategic co-creation goals that are shared and regularly reviewed by all stakeholders to ensure relevance and coherence.
Iterative strategic planning	The organization pursues a fixed co-creation strategy that is not adjusted in response to stakeholder feedback or contextual changes.	The organization regularly reviews and adapts its co-creation strategy to reflect stakeholder input and changing conditions.
Adaptive innovation capacity	The organization relies on rigid, output-oriented procedures and discourages experimentation or feedback-based adjustments.	The organization promotes experimentation, empowers participants and adapts co-created solutions through continuous learning and collaboration.
Sufficient financial resources	The public organization experiences financial difficulties or has a lack of financial resources.	The public organization has sufficient financial resources for both regular and co-creation activities.
Sufficient human resources	The public organization is understaffed.	The public organization has sufficient staff for regular and co-creation activities.
Incentive system in place	The incentive system is not in place because there is a lack of a culture of collaboration and/or insufficient financial resources.	The public organization has a system of material and non-material incentives or rewards for all participants.
Strategic planning capacity	The organization does not plan in advance for co-creation, does not have an appropriate budget or resources, and does not engage community groups or adapt to inclusive formats.	The organization provides a realistic budget and resources, builds on previous co-creation experiences and adapts its structures to support inclusive and flexible engagement practices.
Readiness to change the mindset of public servants	Civil or public servants are neither familiar with the concept of co-creation nor willing to incorporate it into their work.	Civil or public servants are enthusiastic about co-creation and use it whenever they can.
Readiness to change attitudes towards external stakeholders	Civil or public servants perceive external stakeholders as passive users of public services.	Civil or public servants perceive external stakeholders as active participants in the co-creation process and share their knowledge, resources and experiences to increase the effectiveness of co-creation.
A strong leader with a role as an advocate for co-creation	The civil servant lacks a clear vision and management capacity.	The civil servant has a clear vision and has a sufficient management capacity to achieve results effectively.
Reflective organizational mindset	The organization sticks to fixed strategies and routines, shows little willingness to reflect on its practices and avoids questioning its own decisions, even in the light of new insights from co-creation.	The organization actively reflects on its decisions and actions, revises goals and strategies based on feedback from co-creation processes and encourages employees to question and improve their own practices and those of others.
Empowerment and openness	The organization treats co-creation as a formal requirement without giving stakeholders real influence, maintains hierarchical control and discourages input from outside institutional boundaries.	The organization actively supports the empowerment of stakeholders, values their contribution, builds trust and ensures that everyone involved feels responsible for the process and the results.
Positive error culture	Civil or public servants fear the consequences of making mistakes and are discouraged from experimenting and admitting failure when working with external stakeholders.	Civil or public servants are encouraged to admit mistakes, learn from them and use these lessons to improve the co-creation process.
Ability to propose ideas related to community development	Civil or public servants do not recognize ideas that could contribute to community development.	Civil or public servants can identify and propose ideas that can contribute to community development.
Readiness and ability to participate in the co-creation process	Civil or public servants are unable and unwilling to participate in co-creation.	Civil or public servants are willing and able to participate in co-creation.
Ability to recognize the value of co-creation	Civil or public servants see collaboration with external stakeholders as an additional burden and/or do not recognize co-creation as an opportunity to achieve better services or solutions.	Civil or public servants believe that working with external stakeholders brings benefits, such as better policy and service proposals.
Capacity building for co-creation	The organization does not provide targeted training or resources to support stakeholder participation. Stakeholders lack the necessary skills or support to engage effectively in co-creation.	The organization actively builds the capacity of all relevant stakeholders through training, tools and access to institutional support so that they can participate meaningfully and equally in co-creation processes.
Leveraging community knowledge	The organization uses generic approaches that do not take into account the local context, lacks outreach strategies, and misses opportunities to draw on the experience or skills of the community.	The organization actively integrates local knowledge and experience into recruitment, design and implementation by tailoring co-creation formats to the specific needs of the community and engaging stakeholders based on their contextual expertise.
Motivation recognition	The organization does not take into account what motivates citizens or professionals to participate in co-creation. The contribution of participants may be overlooked or undervalued, leading to lower motivation and disengagement.	The organization recognizes and actively responds to different motivations such as personal benefit, ethical obligation or solidarity and ensures that participants feel valued, understood and appreciated, which increases trust and sustained commitment.
Facilitating co-creation forums	The organization does not provide or support structured spaces for co-creation, or such forums are overly bureaucratic and inaccessible (e.g., they require extensive forms or formal procedures).	The organization regularly hosts co-creation forums that are open, inclusive and designed to foster collaboration, dialog and trust between stakeholder groups. These forums allow for reflection, mutual learning and equal participation.
Soft skills by public servants	Civil or public servants do not listen to external stakeholders because they only see them as service users and not as someone to work with.	Civil or public servants can listen empathetically to external stakeholders, build and maintain reflective and reciprocal relationships, and manage conflict.
A skilled leader who builds the trust of external stakeholders	The civil or public servant does not inspire confidence because he or she does not have the time and/or experience to actively engage with external stakeholders.	The civil or public servant inspires the trust of external stakeholders because he or she can identify with their concerns and encourage them to participate in the process.
Training or education for public servants to co-create	Training and education on co-creation is rarely provided by the public organization and usually depends on the individual efforts of the civil or public servants.	Regular training and further education for civil or public servants on co-creation.
Institutional experience	The organization has no experience with co-creation, nor does it have staff with the expertise or resources to support co-creation.	The organization has strong co-creation experience and employs staff with relevant expertise, supported by sufficient resources to effectively implement co-creation initiatives.
Innovation receptivity	The organization resists change, sticks to “business as usual” and shows little willingness to experiment or introduce innovations due to institutional barriers, political resistance or a lack of incentives.	The organization actively supports innovation through continuous testing, adaptation and collaboration, and overcomes institutional and political barriers to introduce new co-creation practices.
Sufficient time or workload for co-creation	Civil or public servants are overloaded with their regular work and therefore do not have the time to participate in co-creation.	Civil or public servants are not overburdened with their regular work and therefore have enough time to participate in co-creation.
Autonomy in decision making	The hierarchical organizational structure prevents civil or public servants from fulfilling their tasks independently.	Civil or public servants have a high degree of freedom of action and decision making autonomy in the performance of their duties.
Boundary-crossing collaboration capacity	The organization operates mainly in isolation or within rigid bureaucratic silos, with limited collaboration beyond its institutional boundaries.	The organization actively collaborates with stakeholders from other sectors or institutions through structural initiatives (e.g., cross-sectoral planning groups, joint platforms) to address common challenges and create public value.
Non-hierarchical leadership	Leadership relies on a formal authority hierarchy to guide collaboration and places little value on building relationships, trust or cross-sector legitimacy.	Leaders operate across organizational and sectoral boundaries by using soft power, personal credibility and inclusive relationships to steer co-creation efforts without relying on formal control.
Support and promotion of co-creation by international organizations	The public organization has not participated in international co-creation projects or initiatives.	The public organization actively participates in international co-creation projects or initiatives.
Strong political will and support for co-creation	Collaboration with external stakeholders is not a priority and therefore lacks political support.	There is strong political support for collaboration with external stakeholders at all levels of government.
An institutional environment based on collaboration	Collaboration with external stakeholders only takes place in the form of consultations in accordance with legal requirements.	Political decisions are always made in collaboration with other stakeholders, which is why co-creation is considered the general standard for policy making.
Debureaucratization of processes	Processes are strictly formalized and civil or public servants blindly follow the rules, regardless of the requirements of the situation.	Processes are easily accessible, without much administrative burden, with civil or public servants following the rules according to the needs of each situation.
Legislation in favor of co-creation (e.g., budget constraints, austerity measures)	Due to various constraints (e.g., financial restrictions and austerity measures, wars), national legislation is reluctant to co-create.	National legislation promotes collaboration and thus creates a favorable environment for co-creation.
Loose regulatory or legal framework	The regulatory or legal framework is strictly regulated and leaves no room for maneuvering.	The regulatory or legal framework is loosely defined to allow co-creation.
Working in a policy area where there are more opportunities for co-creation	A public organization works in a policy area where it is difficult or impossible to cooperate with external stakeholders (e.g., public safety).	A public organization works in a policy area where co-creation with external stakeholders is encouraged (e.g., healthcare and social care).
Inclusive and participatory legal culture	The legal and administrative framework lacks participatory traditions; co-creation is hindered by rigid regulatory systems, limited democratic accountability or the view of citizens as passive recipients of services.	The organization operates within a governance context that promotes inclusive participation, supports participatory traditions, ensures accountability and enables flexible, transparent co-creation processes.

(see Appendix B) shows the operationalization of each basic criterion included in the decision model in the category “Readiness of the organization for traditional co-creation”. Each criterion is presented with its name and a short descriptive statement. The decision maker assesses whether the description applies to their organization and selects either “No” (if the described conditions are not met or not satisfied) or “Yes” (if the described conditions are met or satisfied). The input is used by the model to assess aggregated attributes at a higher level using utility functions.

Table A9. Operationalization of No/Yes values for all basic criteria in category “Readiness of the organization for digital co-creation”.

Criterion	No	Yes
Use of digital technologies	Digital technologies are limited to basic, one-way functions (e.g., announcements, static websites, newsletters) and do not support interaction, collaboration or stakeholder participation in co-creation.	The organization uses digital tools specifically designed to engage stakeholders in collaborative design, problem solving or service innovation, even if not in real time.
Big data	The organization does not have access to or use large or open datasets to support co-creation processes.	The organization actively uses big data resources to gain insights, make decisions and support collaborative co-creation.
Electronic communication in real time	Communication is mainly asynchronous or limited to in-person/telephone interactions, which delays stakeholder responsiveness and engagement.	Tools such as video conferencing, instant messaging and live collaboration platforms are actively used to enable interaction with participants in real time and regardless of location.
Technical advancement in artificial intelligence	The organization does not use AI tools to support decision making or interaction; services and engagement processes are not personalized or data-driven.	AI tools are being integrated into processes to customize services, automate responses or improve collaboration with stakeholders.
Advanced data analytics	Advanced analysis techniques are not or only rarely used when analyzing data for co-creation processes.	Advanced data analytics tools are routinely used to process data and improve co-creation results.
System interoperability	Systems are isolated, incompatible or lack standardized protocols, making inter-agency data exchange slow, manual or impossible.	The organization uses technical standards and best practices that ensure system compatibility and seamless integration with external public sector platforms.
Digital data sharing	Data is withheld, poorly organized or inaccessible to relevant stakeholders, limiting transparency, collaboration and citizen participation.	The organization facilitates the timely and accessible exchange of data between stakeholders, supports open data platforms and considers information exchange as an integral part of co-creation.
Digital technologies that reduce collaboration and coordination costs	Collaboration is resource-intensive or dependent on face-to-face meetings or inefficient communication methods, with digital tools being used too little or not at all.	The organization uses digital tools that simplify coordination and reduce the administrative burden and physical presence requirements.
Digital technologies that enable real-time citizen participation in co-creation	Citizen engagement is limited to static platforms with delayed feedback and without the ability to interact in real time.	Citizens can actively participate via live platforms that enable direct and immediate input.
Digital channels that reduce participation barriers linked to physical inaccessibility	Participation opportunities are predominantly in-person or inaccessible to people with mobility or location restrictions, excluding some vulnerable populations.	Digital tools are intentionally used to include people who cannot attend physical meetings or events.
Mindful selection of technologies appropriate for the co-creation context	Digital tools are selected without regard to stakeholder preferences, accessibility or familiarity, resulting in low engagement or exclusion of certain groups.	The organization deliberately selects widely used, intuitive and accessible digital tools that are tailored to the co-creation context and target groups.
Software quality	The software often does not work, causes frustration among users or lacks essential functions that are required for collaboration.	The software used is stable and up-to-date and enables seamless interaction, which promotes the cohesion and sustainable commitment of the participants.
Lack of meeting technical requirements	The organization experiences technical failures, outdated systems or software incompatibility that prevent the smooth operation of digital tools during co-creation activities.	Organizations have sufficient technical infrastructure in place to ensure that digital co-creation tools function reliably and effectively without significant interruptions or barriers.
Limited access to suitable technology	Participants lack access to suitable devices, stable internet or user-friendly software, especially among socially disadvantaged groups, which hinders equal participation.	The organization supports access to necessary technology, ensures that software is compatible with common user devices, and considers digital inclusion for vulnerable groups.
Positive attitude towards digitalization and agile work practices	The organization is resistant to change, clings to bureaucratic routines or plays down external impulses and the needs of interest groups.	The organization actively responds to stakeholder demands and crises by adopting flexible, adaptable and digital ways of working.
Openness to modern technologies	Digital tools are viewed with skepticism or only used if they are prescribed.	Civil or public servants show a positive attitude towards testing and integrating digital tools into their workflows.
Innovative thinking	Innovation is hindered by isolated thinking, a lack of cross-sector collaboration or rigid linear approaches.	Innovative practices, reflection and iterative co-creation with different stakeholders are supported and encouraged.
Positive error culture in relation to digitalization efforts	Digital innovation is strictly controlled, and mistakes are punished or hidden, which prevents experimentation and risk-taking in co-creation.	The organization supports experimentation and views mistakes as valuable inputs for improving digital co-creation and citizen engagement.
Training in the use of (new) digital technologies	There is no structured effort to train employees or citizens in the use of digital tools, which limits effective engagement in co-creation.	Training programs and onboarding support are in place to build digital literacy and facilitate co-creation with technology.
Cultural competency when working with diverse citizen groups	Staff are not sufficiently trained in how to work effectively with citizens from different cultural or socio-demographic backgrounds in digital environments. Co-creation practices carry the risk of exclusion or tokenism.	Employees are trained or supported to engage with a variety of citizen groups to ensure equal participation in digital co-creation.
Digital divide in terms of skills in using software with personal hardware	Many target groups lack either the digital skills or compatible personal devices required to participate in digital co-creation.	Most citizens or participant groups have both the necessary skills and compatible devices to effectively use digital co-creation platforms and activities.
Unbalanced group dynamics in digital modes of co-creation	Digital co-creation processes often suffer from unequal participation, where dominant voices prevail, there is a lack of moderation and marginalized or less tech-savvy participants are excluded.	The organization uses inclusive facilitation methods, culturally sensitive practices and suitable technologies to ensure that all participants can make a meaningful and equal contribution in digital environments.
Distraction of citizens from engaging in face-to-face participation	Digital channels are the primary or only form of interaction, and opportunities for face-to-face participation are reduced or neglected, weakening trust and depth of interaction.	Digital participation complements and enhances face-to-face processes without replacing them and ensures rich and inclusive engagement.
A strong push for an open and innovative government	There is no clear political or strategic commitment to openness, innovation or collaborative digital governance. The leadership fails to actively promote these principles.	Political and strategic leadership actively promotes an open government, transparency and innovation by supporting policies and practices that foster collaboration and responsiveness.
Growing political support for data protection and privacy	Political leadership either does not support data protection or enforces it inconsistently, resulting in weak or unclear control of citizen data in digital co-creation.	There is clear evidence that policy makers effectively promote and enforce data protection and privacy laws and frameworks, enabling responsible data handling in digital co-creation.
Costs for implementation of digital co-creation infrastructure (e.g., initial funding, project launch)	Start-up funding or resources for digital co-creation infrastructure is insufficient or unavailable, resulting in delays or incomplete deployment of digital collaboration tools.	Sufficient funding and resources are provided and available to implement digital co-creation platforms and infrastructures and to support a full and timely project launch.
Costs for adaptation and maintenance (e.g., ongoing platform upkeep, technical support, updates)	There is insufficient budget or dedicated support for maintaining and updating the digital co-creation infrastructure, resulting in outdated, poorly functioning or insecure systems.	The organization has an established and sustainable budget and technical support system for regular updates, maintenance and troubleshooting of digital co-creation platforms.
Governance capacity to manage relational challenges in digital service transformation	Governance structures are unable or unwilling to deal with relational challenges such as trust deficits or communication problems resulting from virtual service provision.	Governance actively supports the management of, repair of and improvement in user–provider relationships despite digital transformation and virtualization.
Strategic readiness to mitigate equity risks of service virtualization (e.g., digital divides, unequal access)	The organization lacks measures to eliminate or mitigate digital injustices. Marginalized groups are excluded or disadvantaged by virtual services.	The organization implements strategies to reduce the digital divide and ensure equitable access for all user groups, especially vulnerable populations.
Increasing inclusion of citizens in public decision making	Citizen participation is limited, superficial or inconsistent; digital tools do not promote sustained involvement or interaction.	The co-creation process is designed to ensure broad, meaningful and continuous citizen involvement, supported by effective facilitation and an accessible environment.
Building and testing prototypes	Prototyping and experimentation are absent or limited; the service design is rigid and lacks iterative feedback.	Prototypes are actively created, tested and refined throughout the development cycle with the participation of citizens.
Personalized solutions through technology	The services are standardized and can only be adapted to the individual needs of users to a limited extent, which restricts the possibilities for meaningful co-creation.	Services are differentiated and tailored to users’ needs, supported by digital technologies that enable personalized interaction or empowerment.

(see Appendix B) shows the operationalization of each basic criterion included in the decision model in the category “Readiness of the organization for digital co-creation”. Similar to the above, each criterion is presented with its name and a brief descriptive statement. The decision maker assesses whether the description applies to their organization and selects either “No” (if the described conditions are not met or not satisfied) or “Yes” (if the described conditions are met or satisfied). The input is used by the model to assess aggregated attributes at a higher level using utility functions.

Thirdly, decision rules or utility functions were defined for all aggregated attributes. These utility functions determine the value of an aggregated attribute based on the combination of its underlying basic attributes. To explain the logic of the model, we start at the bottom of the hierarchy, where the decision maker evaluates the basic criteria with No/Yes values. These values are then converted into aggregated values (e.g., Bad, Neutral, Good) using predefined utility rules. We illustrate this process using several examples at different levels of the hierarchy and conclude with the final readiness assessment.

Based on the DEX method [34] described in Section Decision EXpert, each aggregated attribute is calculated from the underlying basic criteria using a utility function. In practice, the DEX framework allows the decision maker to define qualitative rules that map combinations of lower-level attribute values to higher-level scores. In this study, we further specify these rules by translating the sum of fulfilled or satisfied criteria into qualitative utility classes (e.g., Bad, Neutral, Good, …) using a transparent and consistent procedure. This procedure ensures interpretability, ordinal consistency and a balanced representation across all possible combinations of criteria, while remaining fully compatible with the DEX principle of rule-based aggregation.

In general terms, the model defines utility rules based on the number of basic criteria and the type of scale applied. Each basic criterion is denoted as c_i (i = 1, …, n), where n is the number of eligible criteria. The scale for each criterion can be binary, ternary or m-level discrete:

$$c_i\in \left\{\mathrm{0,1},\dots ,m\right\}.$$

The total score is calculated as the simple sum of all criteria:

$$S= \sum _{i=1}^n{c}_i,$$

with the maximum possible score S_max = n ∗ m.

The relative score is expressed as a percentage of the maximum:

$$P= {\displaystyle \frac{S}{S_{max}}}\ast 100\%.$$

The total number of possible combinations is

$$N={(m+1) }^n.$$

In order to assign the total score to the qualitative utility classes C₁, …, C_q, (e.g., Bad, Neutral, Good), the percentage scale [0, 100] is divided into q equal intervals of width:

$$I={\displaystyle \frac{100}{q}}.$$

The utility function is then defined as

$$U\left(S\right)=\left\{\begin{array}{c}{C}_1, 0\le P\le I,\\ C_2, I<P\le 2I,\\ \dots \\ C_q, \left(q-1\right)I<P\le 100,\end{array}\right.$$

where C_j denotes the j-th qualitative class. The formulation ensures consistent assignment of total scores to qualitative classes, preserves ordinal consistency, and maintains interpretability across different numbers of criteria or scale levels.

To illustrate how this works in practice, Figure 4 shows the decision rules or utility functions for the aggregate attribute “Autonomy”, which is derived from four basic criteria:

(1)

Sufficient time or workload for co-creation;

(2)

Autonomy in decision making;

(3)

Boundary-crossing collaboration capacity;

(4)

Non-hierarchical leadership.

Each basic criterion c_i (i = 1, …,4) is rated on the following binary scale:

$$c_i\in \left\{\mathrm{0,1}\right\}, 0=“\mathrm{No}” (\mathrm{criterion} \mathrm{not} \mathrm{met}), 1=\mathrm{“}\mathrm{Y}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{s}\mathrm{”} (\mathrm{c}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{i}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{n} \mathrm{m}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{t}).$$

The total score is the sum of the fulfilled criteria:

$$S= \sum _{i=1}^4{c}_i, S \in \left\{0, 1, 2, 3, 4\right\}.$$

As there are four criteria, the number of possible combinations is

$$N=2^4=16.$$

The utility function categorizes the total score S into three qualitative classes: Bad, Neutral and Good. To define these classes, we look at the percentage of the maximum possible score:

$$\mathrm{P}={\displaystyle \frac{S}{S_{max}}}\ast 100\%, S_{max}=4.$$

Table 2. Corresponding percentages for each possible total score for aggregate attribute “Autonomy”.

S	Percentage P
0	0%
1	25%
2	50%
3	75%
4	100%

shows the corresponding percentages for each possible total score:

If the scale from 0 to 100% is divided evenly into three intervals of approximately 33.33% each, the following class assignment results are the following:

$$U\left(S\right)=\left\{\begin{array}{c}Bad, S=0, 1 (P\le 33.33\%)\\ Neutral, S=2 (33.33\%<P\le 66.67\%)\\ Good, S=3, 4 (P>66.67\%)\end{array}\right.$$

This ensures that each class corresponds to approximately one third of the possible points, thus maintaining ordinal consistency and intuitive interpretation.

This results in five rules that are classified as Bad, six rules that are classified as Neutral and five rules that are classified as Good.

The thresholds of 33.33% and 66.67% were chosen to divide the entire range into three approximately equal intervals and to ensure intuitive interpretation and a balanced class representation. This design avoids boundary effects, where a change in a single criterion would disproportionately affect the classification. For a small number of criteria, the thresholds also preserve granularity and ensure that all three qualitative classes can be represented across the decision space. In cases with a small number of criteria, the same percentage thresholds are applied, but the number of possible score values is limited (e.g., 0–3 points for three criteria). Depending on how the thresholds are applied, this can lead to situations where either all three classes are represented (e.g., 0 = Bad; 1–2 = Neutral; 3 = Good), or where only two classes appear (e.g., 0–1 = Bad; 2–3 = Good). The threshold values are selected in such a way that the granularity is maximized. This ensures that all three qualitative classes can be represented whenever possible and a loss of differentiation due to a reduced input resolution is avoided.

Figure 5 shows the decision rules or utility function for the subcategory “Socio-political–legal aspects of the environment in which the organization operates”, which is derived from two aggregated attributes:

(1)

Operating environment;

(2)

Legislation.

Each aggregated criterion a_j (i = 1, 2) is rated on the following scale:

$$a_j\in \left\{\mathrm{0,1},2\right\}, 0=“\mathrm{Bad}”, 1 = “\mathrm{Neutral}”, 2=\mathrm{“}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{”}.$$

The total score is the sum of the individual aggregated criterion score:

$$S= \sum _{j=1}^2{a}_j, S \in \left\{0, 1, 2, 3, 4\right\}.$$

As there are two criteria, the number of possible combinations is

$$N=3^2=9.$$

The utility function categorizes the total score S into three qualitative classes: Bad, Neutral and Good. To define these classes, we look at the percentage of the maximum possible score:

$$\mathrm{P}={\displaystyle \frac{S}{S_{max}}}\ast 100\%, S_{max}=4.$$

Table 3. Corresponding percentages for each possible total score for subcategory “Socio-political-legal aspects of the environment in which the organization operates”.

S	Percentage P
0	0%
1	25%
2	50%
3	75%
4	100%

shows the corresponding percentages for each possible total score.

If the scale from 0 to 100% is divided evenly into three intervals of approximately 33.33% each, the following class assignment results are the following:

$$U\left(S\right)=\left\{\begin{array}{c}Bad, S=0, 1 (P\le 33.33\%)\\ Neutral, S=2 (33.33\%<P\le 66.67\%)\\ Good, S=3, 4 (P>66.67\%)\end{array}\right.$$

This ensures that each class corresponds to approximately one third of the possible points, thus maintaining ordinal consistency and intuitive interpretation.

This results in three rules that are classified as Bad, three rules that are classified as Neutral and three rules that are classified as Good.

Figure 6 shows the decision rules or utility function for the category “Readiness of the organization for traditional co-creation”, which is derived from three subcategories:

(1)

Organizational or structural aspect;

(2)

Individual or stakeholder aspect;

(3)

Socio-political–legal aspects of the environment in which the organization operates.

Each subcategory s_k (k = 1, 2, 3) is rated on the following scale:

$$s_k\in \left\{\mathrm{0,1},2\right\}, 0=“\mathrm{Bad}”, 1 = “\mathrm{Neutral}”, 2=\mathrm{“}\mathrm{G}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{”}.$$

The total score is the sum of the individual aggregated criterion score:

$$S= \sum _{k=1}^3{s}_k, S \in \left\{0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6\right\}.$$

As there are three criteria, the number of possible combinations is

$$N=3^3=27.$$

The utility function categorizes the total score S into five qualitative classes: Very bad, Bad, Neutral, Good and Very good. To define these classes, we look at the percentage of the maximum possible score:

$$\mathrm{P}={\displaystyle \frac{S}{S_{max}}}\ast 100\%, S_{max}=6.$$

Table 4. Corresponding percentages for each possible total score for category “Readiness of the organization for traditional co-creation”.

S	Percentage P
0	0%
1	16.7%
2	33.3%
3	50%
4	66.7%
5	83.3%
6	100%

shows the corresponding percentages for each possible total score.

If the scale from 0 to 100% is divided evenly into five intervals of 20% each, the following are the class assignment results:

$$U\left(S\right)=\left\{\begin{array}{c}Very bad, S=0, 1 (P\le 20\%)\\ Bad, S=2 (20\%<P\le 40\%)\\ Neutral, S=3 (40\%<P\le 60\%)\\ Good, S=4 (60\%<P\le 80\%)\\ Very good, S=5, 6 (P>80\%)\end{array}\right.$$

This ensures that each class corresponds to one fifth of the possible points, thus maintaining ordinal consistency and intuitive interpretation.

This results in four rules that are classified as Very bad, six rules that are classified as Bad, seven rules that are classified as Neutral, six rules that are classified as Good and four rules that are classified as Very good.

Figure 7 shows the decision rules or utility function for the final score “Readiness of the organization for co-creation”, which is derived from two main categories:

(1)

Readiness of the organization for traditional co-creation;

(2)

Readiness of the organization for digital co-creation.

Each of these categories can take on one of five possible values (Very bad, Bad, Neutral, Good, Very good), resulting in a total of 5² = 25 utility functions.

Each category R_l (l = 1, 2) is rated on the following scale:

$$R_l\in \left\{\mathrm{0,1},\mathrm{2,3},4\right\}, 0=\mathrm{Very} \mathrm{Bad}”, 1 = “\mathrm{Bad}”, 2=\mathrm{N}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{u}\mathrm{t}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{a}\mathrm{l}, 3 =“\mathrm{Good}”, 4=\mathrm{“}\mathrm{V}\mathrm{e}\mathrm{r}\mathrm{y} \mathrm{g}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{o}\mathrm{d}\mathrm{”}.$$

The total score is the sum of the individual aggregated criterion score:

$$S= \sum _{k=1}^2{R}_l, S \in \left\{0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, \mathrm{6,7},8\right\}.$$

As there are three criteria, the number of possible combinations is

$$N=5^2=25.$$

The utility function categorizes the total score S into seven qualitative classes: Very bad, Bad, Somewhat bad, Neutral, Somewhat good, Good and Very good. To define these classes, we look at the percentage of the maximum possible score:

$$\mathrm{P}={\displaystyle \frac{S}{S_{max}}}\ast 100\%, S_{max}=8.$$

Table 5. Corresponding percentages for each possible total score “Readiness of the organization for co-creation”.

S	Percentage P
0	0%
1	12.5%
2	25%
3	37.5%
4	50%
5	62.5%
6	75%
7	87.5%
8	100%

shows the corresponding percentages for each possible total score.

If the scale from 0 to 100% is divided evenly into seven intervals of approximately 14.29% each, the following are the class assignment results:

$$U\left(S\right)=\left\{\begin{array}{c}Very bad, S=0, 1 (P\le 14.29\%)\\ Bad, S=2 \left(14.29\%<P\le 28.57\%\right)\\ Somewhat bad, S=3 (28.57 \%<P\le 42.86\%)\\ Neutral, S=4 \left(42.86\%<P\le 57.14\%\right)\\ Somewhat good, S=5 (57.14\%<P\le 71.43\%)\\ Good, S=6 (71.43\%<P\le 85.71\%)\\ Very good, S=7, 8 (P>85.71\%)\end{array}\right.$$

This ensures that each class corresponds to one seventh of the possible points, thus maintaining ordinal consistency and intuitive interpretation.

This results in three rules that are classified as Very bad, three rules that are classified as Bad, four rules that are classified as Somewhat bad, five rules that are classified as Neutral, four rules that are classified as Somewhat good, three rules that are classified as Good and three rules that are classified as Very good.

In the proposed model, all basic attributes are weighted equally, i.e., they contribute equally to the aggregated values of their aggregated attribute. This approach is consistently applied throughout the model and is reflected in the utility functions. It can also be seen in Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7, where the percentage weighting is indicated under the names of the individual criteria, the aggregated criteria, the subcategories and the categories. Equal weighting supports a transparent and unbiased assessment and ensures that all criteria are treated as equally important when there is no expert consensus.

To prepare the proposed model for demonstration and validation, a series of synthetic cases were created. First, 18 alternatives were created using random sampling [369] for all the input attributes to simulate typical organizational profiles. In addition, two extreme cases were included, one where all criteria were set to “Yes” and one where all were set to “No”, to test the limits of the classification scale. After reviewing the results, it was found that some classification categories were not represented. Therefore, three additional alternatives were created through purposive sampling to ensure that each class defined in the model’s utility functions was covered. This hybrid approach ensured that the full range of the classification system was tested during the internal validation.

4.4. Step 4: Demonstration and Internal Validation (Testing with Synthetic Cases)

The previously created synthetic cases were used to demonstrate and internally validate the developed decision model in order to check whether the model correctly classifies different alternatives into the predefined classification categories.

Figure 8 illustrates the classification of the alternatives across the readiness classes and highlights the distribution from “Very bad” to “Very good”. Borderline cases occur at both extremes, and one alternative from the purposive sample is included in both the “Very bad” and “Very good” classes. This figure also shows the intermediate classifications, including “Bad”, “Somewhat bad”, “Neutral”, “Somewhat good” and “Good”, and provides a clear overview of how the alternatives are distributed across the classes. Figure 8 presents only a subset of the results for illustrative purposes. The full set of alternatives is available in Appendix D (see Figure A9) to ensure transparency and allow the reader to review the full results.

For synthetic case 22, a what-if analysis was performed by changing the input values for the first and last criteria from “No” to “Yes”. This example illustrates that in cases where an alternative narrowly misses a higher class, even small changes in the inputs can lead to substantial differences in the classification. In this case, the final assessment changed from “Very bad” to “Bad”. This shift occurred because the assessments of the two subcategories improved from “Bad” to “Neutral”, which in turn affected the organization’s readiness in both the traditional and digital co-creation categories, changing them from “Very bad” to “Bad”. If an organization is assessed as “Bad” in both traditional and digital co-creation readiness, the final assessment according to the utility functions is “Bad”. Prior to the what-if analysis, the alternative was assessed as “Very bad” in both categories, resulting in a final assessment of “Very bad”.

The sensitivity analysis was performed by adjusting the weights in the top-level utility function. Originally, both categories were weighted equally at 50%, but the weights were changed to 70% for the category “Readiness of the organization for traditional co-creation” and 30% for “Readiness of the organization for digital co-creation”. This adjustment changed the utility function and, consequently, affected the final rankings.

Figure 9 shows only the alternatives whose final classification changed as a result of the sensitivity analysis; alternatives whose classification remained unchanged are not shown. The full set of alternatives, including those that were not affected by the sensitivity analysis, can be found in Appendix D (see Figure A10).

As a result of the weight adjustment, the classification of alternatives changed. In particular, the number of alternatives classified as “Bad” increased from one to five, while the alternatives classified as “Somewhat bad” reduced from six to one. The number of alternatives classified as “Neutral” remained unchanged, while the “Somewhat good” class decreased from four to two. The number of alternatives classified as “Good” increased from one to four, while the number of alternatives classified as “Very bad” and “Very good” remained unchanged.

Internal validation confirmed that the model is consistent, clearly distinguishes between readiness classes and responds appropriately to changes in input values and weighting assumptions. All output classes were achieved, and the structure of the utility functions provides interpretable and plausible results. These results support the readiness of the model to be further optimized and tested in practice.

4.5. Step 5: Preparation for Real-World Use and Expert Validation (Future Work)

Although the proposed model has proven its consistency through synthetic tests, further steps are needed to prepare it for practical application in the real world. Currently, all criteria are equally weighted to ensure transparency and neutrality in the absence of expert consensus. However, the involvement of domain experts or stakeholders from the public administration could support the development of more context-sensitive weightings and the refinement of the utility functions. This would improve the interpretability and contextual fit of the decision model. Future work will focus on collecting empirical data from practitioners and experts to adapt the model to the specific characteristics, constraints and priorities of the environment in which public organizations operate. In addition, external validation through expert review of practical applications in the real world could further strengthen the credibility and usefulness of the model. The developed decision model should help public managers and decision makers to systematically assess their organizational readiness for co-creation and identify areas for improvement.

5. Discussion

In this study, a decision support model was presented to assess the readiness of organizations for co-creation in public administration. This model was developed using a structured design science research approach and was validated internally through synthetic cases. The results show that the model is consistent and interpretable and can classify different organizational alternatives into all readiness classes. What-if and sensitivity analyses confirmed that the model is responsive to variations in input criteria and weighting assumptions, underscoring its potential utility for decision makers. Even modest improvements in specific criteria can change the overall classification of readiness and provide actionable insights to organizations seeking to improve their co-creation capabilities.

Compared to previous models [24,70,76], the decision model developed in this study is based on a more comprehensive and up-to-date literature review. Previous models were based on the literature published up to 2018, whereas this study incorporates findings from academic publications up to 2024. This expanded coverage draws on six additional years of empirical and conceptual evidence and allows for the identification of several drivers and barriers not considered in previous works, resulting in a broader and more detailed set of evaluation criteria. To reflect this expanded structure, the model uses a seven-level classification scale that allows for a more nuanced assessment of organizational readiness for co-creation.

The resulting model goes beyond earlier frameworks in three key ways:

• Temporal extension, as it integrates six additional years of empirical and conceptual findings, providing a more comprehensive account of emerging drivers and barriers;
• Dimensional expansion, as it introduces a structured dimension of digital co-creation (four subcategories) that was missing in previous models and complements the traditional aspects of readiness;
• Operational precision, as 81 criteria are standardized and consolidated in a non-redundant, decision-oriented format that lends itself to self-assessment and improvement planning.
• Key contributions of this study include the following:
• A systematic synthesis of the current literature to operationalize a broad range of drivers and barriers to co-creation readiness in public administration;
• The development of a hierarchical, rule-based decision model that translates theoretical constructs into practical, binary input criteria;
• Internal validation that demonstrates the model’s logical consistency and ability to distinguish between different organizational profiles;
• Application of what-if and sensitivity analyses to examine the robustness of the model and identify starting points for improvement.

Despite these contributions, this study has several limitations. First, the lack of domain experts in determining the criterion weights and utility functions led to an equal weighting of all criteria. Future research should actively involve domain experts to refine the criteria, adjust weights where necessary and calibrate the utility rules for improved contextual accuracy. One possible approach is to develop a stepwise strategy in which expert feedback is iteratively incorporated into the model to improve both its validity and practical relevance.

Second, internal validation relied on synthetic cases that may not fully reflect the complexity and variability of real organizations. Testing synthetic cases, as was carried out in this study, demonstrates the internal consistency and classification ability of the model and is a first step towards the empirical validation described below. External validation is required to confirm construct validity, predictive power and applicability in different public administration contexts. Applying the model in real organizations would also allow for empirical testing of discriminant validity and fine-tuning of utility rules based on observed patterns. To provide an empirical basis, future research will follow a stepwise validation approach. Construct validity can be assessed by comparing the readiness scores generated by the model with the ratings of independent experts for the same organizations. Discriminant validity can be examined by applying the model to multiple organizations to ensure that it discriminates meaningfully between different readiness levels. Predictive validity, which requires a longitudinal perspective, would involve comparing readiness scores with the results of subsequent co-creation projects. This stepwise approach would provide a realistic way to strengthen the credibility and practical applicability of the model over time.

Third, to increase practical value, organizations could use the model in certain phases of strategic planning, such as assessing readiness prior to implementation, monitoring improvement initiatives or benchmarking across departments. Resources required include trained staff who can evaluate the basic criteria, access to organizational data and facilitation of a structured discussion to interpret the results. In addition, a simplified version of the model could be developed for quick assessments of organizational readiness, while the full version remains available as a detailed analytical tool. Such a dual approach would increase accessibility for managers and improve the practical applicability of the model.

By providing a structured and transparent assessment of organizational readiness for co-creation, this model supports agile governance in public administration and enables managers to adapt their strategies in response to new challenges. In this way, it contributes to strengthening organizational resilience by helping institutions anticipate barriers, allocate resources effectively and continuously improve their co-creation capabilities.

The proposed decision support model promotes the systematic assessment of organizational readiness for co-creation in public administration by combining recent theoretical developments with operational decision frameworks. Its transparent, rule-based design facilitates structured self-assessment, identifies areas for targeted organizational development and provides a basis for continuous improvement. The research question posed in the introduction, “How can recent knowledge about the drivers and barriers of co-creation be systematically integrated and operationalized into a rule-based, hierarchical decision making model for assessing organizational readiness in public administration?” was answered through the development, operationalization and internal validation of the model. Although this model needs further refinement and empirical validation, it provides a workable foundation for public administration managers who want to improve their co-creation capabilities and promote innovative governance practices.