33
DOI: 10.17573/cepar.2022.1.02 1.01 Original scientific article
Command, Control and Co-Creation: 
Drivers and Barriers Faced by 
Professionals Co-Creating in  
the Slovenian Public Sector
Sanja Vrbek
University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Public Administration, Slovenia
sanja.vrbek@fu.uni-lj.si
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3489-0411
Marlot Kuiper
Utrecht University, Utrecht School of Governance, Netherlands
m.kuiper@uu.nl
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4479-3773
Received: 7. 1. 2022
Revised: 7. 3. 2022
Accepted: 14. 3. 2022
Published: 31. 5. 2022
ABSTRACT
The academic contribution to the field is twofold. Firstly, the paper 
identifies co-creation drivers and barriers from the professionals’ point 
of view – a largely overlooked perspective in the relevant literature. Sec-
ondly, by being placed in the Slovenian administrative context, the paper 
complements and enriches the debate on co-creation shaped predomi-
nantly by the experience of Northern and Western Europe.
Purpose: By focusing on the Slovenian public sector, as a traditionally hi-
erarchical administrative context, the paper aims to identify factors that 
stimulate professionals to implement co-creation in their everyday work, 
as well as factors that impede their decision and behaviour in this direc-
tion.
Design/methodology/approach: The paper relies on two Slovenian case 
studies capturing the experience of professionals from the Ministry of 
Public Administration and the Municipality of Ljubljana. The key data-
gathering methods were qualitative open-ended interviews with ‘lead 
professionals’ (at managerial positions) and focus groups with profes-
sionals who have regular contact with service users/external stakehold-
ers and/or experience with co-creation.
Findings: The findings of the paper indicate that professionals implement 
co-creation even in ‘unfavourable’ hierarchical and centralised settings. A 
key driver for them to co-create in such a context is strong political sup-
port at the highest level. However, a more profound internalisation of 
Vrbek, S., Kuiper, M. (2022). Command, Control and Co-Creation: Drivers and Barriers 
Faced by Professionals Co-Creating in the Slovenian Public Sector. 
Central European Public Administration Review, 20(1), pp. 33–55
2591-2259/© 2022 University of Ljubljana, Faculty of Public Administration.
This is an open access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/202234
Sanja Vrbek, Marlot Kuiper
co-creation depends on the redefinition of their professional identity, as 
well as on the (personal or collective/organisational) interest in co-crea-
tion.
Originality/significance: The paper makes a pioneer step in providing an 
in-depth look into the drivers and barriers professionals face when imple-
menting co-creation in the Slovenian public sector. As such, it provides 
valuable input for further comparative analyses of co-creation drivers 
and barriers faced by professionals across Central and Eastern Europe.
Keywords: barriers, co-creation, drivers, professionals, Slovenia
JEL: H83, L84
1 Introduction
Public sectors across the globe have been facing unprecedented challenges 
stemming from economic crises, pandemics and climate change. A promising 
solution to these wicked problems is ‘co-creation’ – a concept resting on the 
assumption that their successful solution requires wider collaboration and ex-
change of resources among all relevant actors, including citizens, companies, 
NGOs, etc. (Dixon et al., 2021; Torfing, 2019). However, the very adoption of 
this idea by public organisations does not automatically guarantee success 
(Magnussen and Rønning, 2021; Engen et al., 2020), as the outcome largely 
depends on the role played by professionals.
The paper aims to map drivers and barriers professionals face during the im-
plementation of co-creation in the Slovenian public sector. Precisely, the goal 
is to identify factors that stimulate professionals to implement co-creation in 
their work, as well as factors that impede their decision and behaviour in this 
direction. Thus, the paper addresses two key shortcomings in the literature on 
co-creation: 1) the largely overlooked perspective of professionals, and 2) its 
contextual bias. The latter implies that the theory and research on co-creation 
are shaped almost exclusively by the experience of Northern and Western Eu-
rope, marginalising other regions as relevant research sites (specifically Cen-
tral and Eastern Europe, see Jukić et al., 2019, p. 11). Given the importance of 
the context, this is highly problematic as it widens the discrepancy between 
theory and practice and thus challenges the relevancy of the theoretical con-
clusions as to when and why co-creation works. Addressing both these gaps 
simultaneously, the paper will contribute significantly to the literature on co-
creation, in terms of identifying conditions that stimulate professionals to co-
create even in ‘unfavourable’ (e.g. centralised and hierarchical) settings.
Therefore, the paper shifts the research focus to the co-creation experience 
of the Slovenian public sector and the prism of professionals. Slovenia is an 
interesting administrative environment due to its resilience and impact of the 
local context on reform outcomes – inter alia evident in the failure to achieve 
full convergence with the EU benchmarks on administrative reform (Verhei-
jen, 2010, p. 232). Moreover, the Slovenian context has provided space for the 
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/2022 35
Command, Control and Co-Creation: Drivers and Barriers Faced by Professionals Co-Creating 
in the Slovenian Public Sector
emergence of some authentic collaborative innovations, such as participatory 
budgeting (Klun and Stare, 2019) and co-creation and co-production initiatives 
at the national and local levels (Vrbek and Jukić, 2021; Dečman, 2019; Bastin 
and Weinberg, 2018). The limited research conducted specifically about the 
co-creation experience of Slovenian public organisations has managed to cap-
ture co-creation drivers and barriers related to (un)favourable organisational 
features (Hržica et al., 2021; Vrbek and Jukić, 2021), thus drawing an image 
of the Slovenian public sector as a rather centralised structure embodying 
top-down culture (Regal and Ferlie, 2020). However, the key problem is that 
we still lack an understanding of the perspective and role of professionals to 
be able to conclude whether and to what extent this kind of administrative 
environment enables or impedes them to implement co-creation.
Hence, the following research question is posed:
What are the drivers and barriers that stimulate and impede professionals in the 
Slovenian public sector to implement co-creation in their work?
To answer the research question, the paper relies on two case studies refer-
ring to the experience of professionals within the Slovenian Ministry of Pub-
lic Administration (MPA) and the Municipality of Ljubljana (MoL). The former 
case captures the endeavours and activities undertaken in the area of digitali-
sation, where professionals often (aim to) apply co-creation. The latter case 
refers to the experience of professionals within the MoL, which sets collabo-
ration with citizens among its key strategic priorities and implements inno-
vative practices featuring aspects of co-creation (e.g. the Service of Citizens’ 
Initiatives, see Vrbek, 2020).
The remainder of the paper is structured as follows. In the next chapter, we 
review the relevant literature to define who professionals are and discuss 
their role regarding co-creation. The third chapter presents the methodology 
of the research and the two Slovenian case studies. The fourth and fifth chap-
ters discuss co-creation drivers and barriers faced by professionals from the 
MPA and MoL, respectively. In the concluding chapter, we provide an answer 
to the research question and revisit the empirical findings through the prism 
of their contribution to the theory on co-creation. Eventually, we finish with 
a discussion of the findings of the two cases with a view to making more gen-
eral conclusions about the Slovenian context, while pointing out the research 
limitations and suggesting directions for future research.
2 Professionals and co-creation – a theoretical discussion
Professionals are the ones who actually ‘make’ policies through their crucial 
role in implementing public policies (Lipsky, 2010, see also Hill, 2003; Jilke 
and Tummers, 2018; Zacka, 2017; Hupe et al., 2016). Thus, they emerge as 
the key ‘gatekeeper’ when introducing new ‘ways of doing things’ that could 
disturb the established equilibriums, roles or power structures. In a time of 
change, their behaviour can vary on a spectrum from resistance to acceptance 
(Numerato et al., 2012), depending on the specific situation and their motiva-
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/202236
Sanja Vrbek, Marlot Kuiper
tion. Precisely in the context of co-creation, Osborne et al. (2021) note that 
the result can be sometimes negatively affected by professional power or by 
manipulation of the very process to suit their ends. This, however, should not 
be understood as an a priori opposition of professionals to co-creation. Often, 
professionals are simply expected to co-create although this idea is novel in 
terms of their professional culture and they lack the support, tools and meth-
ods for creating interaction and dialogue with the citizens (Tuurnas, 2015). 
Thus, they might be willing to co-create, but simply do not have the knowl-
edge or ability to do so.
Moreover, the efforts of professionals to internalise and practice co-creation 
in their work is expected to vary across different contexts. The impact of dif-
ferent administrative traditions is an important aspect in this regard, which 
had caught the eye of scholars before – e.g. concerning the implementation 
of New Public Management (NPM) reforms and Europeanisation (Painter and 
Peters, 2010). Now, the administrative and/or national context emerges as a 
prominent factor also in the debate on co-creation (Torfing et al., 2019; Voor-
berg et al., 2017; Parrado et al., 2013). Namely, Parrado et al. (2013) observe 
that national contexts are an important aspect that shape the quality and 
level of collaborative innovations. Moreover, contrary to the general expec-
tations, Voorberg et al. (2017, p. 191) conclude that an authoritarian state 
tradition does not automatically represent a barrier to co-creation – in some 
national contexts (e.g. Estonia), it actually enables easier implementation of 
co-creation initiatives. Hence, Torfing et al. (2019) reject any deterministic 
correlation between co-creation and specific countries (e.g. the Nordic coun-
tries), arguing that such initiatives exist in different national contexts. Unfor-
tunately, the question as to how different administrative/national contexts 
affect the position and behaviour of professionals is still largely overlooked.
Hence, the goal of this chapter is to present the state-of-the-art of the rel-
evant literature about the role and behaviour of professionals, with a specific 
focus on co-creation. We will start off with a conceptualization of profession-
als as daily ‘creators’ of public policies, followed by a discussion of how pro-
fessionals are portrayed as either ‘stubborn’ or actual change agents in lit-
erature. The concluding paragraph delves into what is currently known about 
drivers and barriers that professionals might face when co-creation. As this 
debate is largely shaped by the experience of Northern and Western Europe, 
this chapter is crucial for understanding our empirical findings vis-à-vis (the 
limits of) the present theoretical knowledge. A clear overview of the theory 
on professionals and co-creation will prepare the setting for the discussion (in 
the conclusion) as to whether and to what extent our findings confirm pre-
sent theoretical assumptions or challenge our understanding of profession-
als’ behaviour regarding co-creation in different (non-Western) administrative 
contexts. The latter will not only require additional research and potentially 
redefinition of the very theoretical basis as to when co-creation works, but 
will have valuable practical implications – providing basis for the development 
of practical tools supporting public organisations to successfully implement 
co-creation in different administrative environments.
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/2022 37
Command, Control and Co-Creation: Drivers and Barriers Faced by Professionals Co-Creating 
in the Slovenian Public Sector
2.1 Professionals as day-to-day ‘creators’ of public policies
Despite the professionals’ contribution to solving complex societal problems 
and implementing public policies (e.g. Zacka, 2017; Hupe and Hill, 2016), their 
perspective in co-creation research is underrepresented (van de Grift et al., 
2020; Steen and Tuurnas, 2018). However, before turning to a more in-depth 
consideration of (the importance of) the roles that professionals play in mak-
ing co-creation ‘work’, we need to define who professionals are and to exam-
ine and delimit the term ‘professional’.
Harold Wilensky is considered the first to have adopted the ‘professional’ 
concept in social science research. Ever since his ground-breaking work The 
Professionalization of Everyone? in which Wilensky identified the key char-
acteristics of professional occupations, his work has inspired a large body of 
literature on the sociology of professions (e.g. Evetts, 2009; Noordegraaf, 
2007; Freidson, 2001). Notwithstanding the popularity of the term, the con-
cept ‘professional’ is often loosely applied and scholars refer to somewhat 
different characteristics to describe what ‘professionalism’ entails. Still, we 
can identify three main principles that seem dominant in the current day lit-
erature on professionalism.
First, professionals have acquired specialised knowledge. Through enduring 
training, professionals obtained a ‘technical base’ (Wilensky, 1964), a shared 
body of knowledge that is sometimes even called ‘esoteric’ because it is spe-
cialised and takes time and effort to acquire (Freidson, 1970). Second, profes-
sionals ideally share a ‘service ethic’; they know how to act like professionals, 
according to their professional standards, and they are devoted to the service 
of the public, beyond material or financial incentives (Evetts, 2009). Codes of 
ethics for example prescribe appropriate behaviour (Wilensky, 1964). By in-
vesting in education, associations and codes of conduct, professionals secure 
both the ‘technical base’ of their profession as well as its ‘service ethic’ (Wilen-
sky, 1964), and high levels of professional autonomy. The third principle is 
a regulatory one; professionals themselves have control over the content 
of their occupation. They develop professional standards and associations, 
determine professional qualifications, set up training and education pro-
grammes, and develop codes of conduct. Besides this occupational autono-
my, individual professionals have the leeway to apply their body of knowledge 
and make decisions about individual cases (Freidson, 1994).
These three principles – a technical base, a service ethic and autonomy – to-
gether form the ‘archetypical’ or ‘classic’ model of professionalism. Despite a 
wide scholarly agreement on these key assets, they do not provide decisive 
answers as to which occupations can be considered ‘professional’ whilst oth-
ers cannot. As a result, scholars might get bogged down in debates about 
‘more’ or ‘less’ professional. For instance, medicine and law are often por-
trayed as ‘full’ or ‘classic’ professions, while social workers, police officers and 
elementary school teachers have been positioned as ‘semi-professionals’ – 
because their knowledge base is considered less ‘esoteric’, or because they 
exercise less control over the content of their work (Etzioni, 1969). In general, 
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/202238
Sanja Vrbek, Marlot Kuiper
the more standards are set by occupational fields, the stronger these profes-
sionals are considered in terms of their autonomies and power (Noordegraaf 
and Steijn, 2014).
Occupations that are often considered as semi-professional or ‘street-level 
professionals’ (e.g. social workers, police officers, teachers) (Noordegraaf, 
2015) have important similarities with what Michael Lipsky called ‘street-level 
bureaucrats’. In his seminal work, Lipsky (2010) argues that street-level bureau-
crats actually ‘make’ policies through their crucial role in implementing public 
policies (Lipsky, 2010, see also Hill, 2003; Jilke and Tummers, 2018; Zacka, 2017; 
Hupe et al., 2016). Both ‘full’ professionals and street-level professionals/bu-
reaucrats have the leeway – Lipsky refers to it as ‘discretion’ – to make decisions 
about individual cases that often have an important impact on people’s lives. 
Compared to ‘full professions’, street-level professions are educated, trained 
and socialised, but they operate within more strict bureaucratic and organisa-
tional frameworks, with procedures and protocols (Noordegraaf, 2015).
Hence, we can identify the professionals in this paper – civil servants working at 
the municipality and ministerial level – as ‘street-level professions’. In the case 
of civil servants from the ministry, we focus on professionals as ‘redesigners’ 
of public services directed at digitalisation and in collaboration with external 
stakeholders. In the case of civil servants working at the municipality, we fo-
cus on professionals as ‘daily producers’ of public services, that is, people who 
are in direct contact with citizens and other stakeholders while they make deci-
sions on specific cases. Although in both cases we primarily focus on profession-
als that collaborate with other stakeholders to (re)design and deliver services 
within the (legal) frameworks of the ministry and municipality, we also capture 
the perspective of ‘lead professionals’ (on a managerial position). Thus, we ac-
knowledge the ongoing scholarly discussions about whether managers can be 
considered professionals (as they also develop a technical base and set profes-
sional standards; see e.g. Adams, 2020; Van Bockel and Noordegraaf, 2006).
2.2 Professionals from ‘stubborn’ to ‘change agent’
To gain an insight into the current knowledge about the drivers and barriers 
that professionals face when co-creating, we first explore how they view and 
deal with change directed at co-creation. For this purpose, we refer to litera-
ture on New Public Governance (NPG) (Bryson et al., 2014; Osborne, 2010) 
and to sources analysing the (changing) roles of professionals in earlier re-
forms, such as NPM. The latter is recognised as relevant since the present 
behaviour of professionals towards co-creation largely depends on the roles 
and skills they acquired in the past (McDermott et al., 2015).
Unfortunately, due to limited empirical evidence of how professionals re-
spond to co-creation related change, their role is mostly hypothesised. A 
dominant storyline of the literature on both ‘street-level bureaucracy’ and 
‘sociology of professions’ draws the image of professionals as ‘stubborn’ and 
resistant to change. Namely, street-level bureaucracy literature focuses on 
the coping behaviour of professionals (see e.g. Tummers et al., 2015 for an 
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/2022 39
Command, Control and Co-Creation: Drivers and Barriers Faced by Professionals Co-Creating 
in the Slovenian Public Sector
overview) and identifies three ‘families’ of such behaviour: moving towards 
clients, moving away from clients, and moving against clients. These strate-
gies strongly resonate with the behaviour described by Lipsky (2010) – when 
professionals, to ease their work, either ‘cherry pick’ simple cases or ration 
services by saying to service users “today is very busy, please return tomor-
row” (due to lack of time and information).
Similarly, the literature on the sociology of professions portrays professionals 
as resistant to change, particularly when it comes to NPM-like reforms en-
tailing market-based competition and (quantitative) performance measures 
that have been implemented in many Western European societies (see e.g. 
Kuhlmann et al., 2009; Thomas and Davies, 2005; Blomgren, 2003). Farrell and 
Morris (2003, pp. 136-137) refer to a quote by Ackroyd et al. (1989) that is 
quite illustrative of this period: “To put it crudely, professionals would be the 
‘losers’ and managers ‘the winners’” – implying that the key reason for the 
professionals’ resistance to NPM reforms was the perceived threat to their 
autonomy (Farrell and Morris, 2003; Sehested, 2002).
In contrast to these dominant trends, professionals are also seen as poten-
tial change agents (Leicht, et al., 2009). Namely, not only discretion has been 
used to thwart change, but also to circumvent barriers in order to implement 
and achieve the agreed policy objectives (Campbell 2012). Hence, since pro-
fessionals do have discretion and valuable knowledge required for effective 
interaction with citizens and other stakeholders (Dent et al., 2016), their ac-
tive engagement can be a success factor for collaborative initiatives. In sum, 
although professionals have been mostly portrayed as ‘stubborn’ and resist-
ant to change, they are increasingly seen as important actors whose efforts 
are an absolute requirement to make new approaches, such as co-creation, 
work in practice.
2.3 Drivers and barriers professionals face when using  
co-creation
Unfortunately, the relevant literature does not explicitly tackle the issue of 
drivers and barriers professionals face when co-creating. This is not surpris-
ing, as professionals are often portrayed as actors who are simply expected 
to embrace reforms (inter alia toward processes of co-creation) and ‘just do 
what it takes’. Hence, most literature focuses on how to engage citizens in 
co-creation (e.g. Brandsen et al., 2018) and not on what professionals need to 
do to co-create successfully with citizens and other stakeholders. Despite the 
prevailing assumption that professionals are key for successful public policy 
delivery (Jilke and Tummers, 2018; Zacka, 2017; Hupe et al., 2016), the issue 
as to how professionals actually implement co-creation in their work has been 
hardly dealt with. This is problematic, as an approach towards more integrat-
ed or ‘holistic’ services is new to professionals; therefore, it is unrealistic to 
expect that they will ‘automatically’ take on new roles in the wake of NPG 
reforms (Tuurnas, 2015).
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/202240
Sanja Vrbek, Marlot Kuiper
Put it differently, professionals have always been trained to provide special-
ised services for which they endured continuous training. Lately, however, 
professionals have been faced with increasing expectations to become what 
is known as ‘T-shaped professionals’ (see e.g. Barile et al., 2012), meaning that 
on top of their specialised expertise (the vertical axis of the letter T) they also 
need more general expertise to be able to collaborate with others (the hori-
zontal axis of the letter T). The demand for T-shaped professionalism not only 
requires more and different knowledge but also implies a shift in professional 
identity. In traditional models of professionalism, professionals were seen 
as ‘experts’ or ‘guardians of the law’ that use their specialised knowledge to 
make decisions about complex cases. The horizontal layer of the letter ‘T’ im-
plies a need for more holistic knowledge, but also a professional identity of a 
‘collaborative partner’ able to connect expertise from different domains and 
stakeholders (Hendrikx et al., 2020).
Based on the limited research it can be concluded that professionals, in gen-
eral, seem to proactively support the aims of co-creation efforts – e.g., re-
sponsiveness to local needs of service users (van Gestel et al., 2019, Weir et 
al., 2019; Steen and Tuurnas, 2018; McDermott et al., 2015). An important 
driver for them to use co-creation is recognition of added value from collabo-
ration with citizens and other stakeholders. At the same time, however, pro-
fessionals often struggle to fulfil the new roles expected from them, because 
they feel constrained (van Gestel et al., 2019) or inapt (Tuurnas, 2015) to do 
so (Aschhoff and Vogel, 2019). Co-creation is simply expected from them, 
while an explication of what co-creation actually stands for – in terms of a 
shift in professional identity, new skills and roles that come with it – is lacking. 
Thus, professionals often lack the support, tools and methods for interact-
ing with other stakeholders (Tuurnas, 2015), which is a key asset of T-shaped 
professionalism. As professionals are not supported in developing their new 
role, Moynihan and Thomas (2013, p. 790) argue that most of them continue 
to identify themselves as ‘experts’, while co-creation is better served by those 
who see themselves as (‘lead’) partners in service development and delivery 
(see also Steen and Tuurnas, 2018). Consequently, professionals simply keep 
applying their familiar professional practices and frames since there is little 
attention for training and professional development directed at new ap-
proaches of service delivery, such as co-creation (Noordegraaf et al., 2016; 
Tuurnas, 2015).
Thus, it can be concluded that professionals are often willing to co-create, 
but not able to take on a new identity and use co-creation in their daily work. 
However, we should be cautious in making generalisations as these conclu-
sions rely on empirical evidence gathered in Northern and Western European 
contexts (see for example the work of Tuurnas (2016) conducted in the Finn-
ish context). Having in mind the importance of the national administrative 
environment, they will be revisited in the concluding chapter of the paper in 
light of the conclusions made about the Slovenian context.
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/2022 41
Command, Control and Co-Creation: Drivers and Barriers Faced by Professionals Co-Creating 
in the Slovenian Public Sector
3 Methodology
The paper relies on two Slovenian case studies – one at the national and the 
other at the local level. The first case focuses on the efforts and activities of 
professionals within the Ministry of Public Administration (MPA), undertaken 
specifically in the area of digitalisation – e.g. development of e-services, digital 
co-creation platforms and data management. Although the MPA fits into the 
general idea of the Slovenian public sector as a hierarchical and centralised 
structure nurturing a top-down culture, there are organisational units within 
it that practice different, more innovative approaches that depart from the 
standard ‘way of doing things’. This is particularly relevant for the area of digi-
talisation featuring project-based organisation of work and co-creation with 
external stakeholders aimed at solving complex problems. In 2020 (when the 
research was conducted), the organisational unit responsible for most tasks 
related to digitalisation – such as the development of e-services and portals 
for external users, back-office information systems and data management –
was the Information Society and Informatics Directorate. Besides the work of 
the Directorate, there were other innovative digital platforms established by 
the MPA and enabling co-creation activities on a regular basis, e.g. the Stop 
Bureaucracy portal and the E-democracy portal. The former provides a chan-
nel for citizens and entrepreneurs who encounter problems during admin-
istrative procedures and enables them to work together with the relevant 
institutions on their solution, while the latter offers a platform for citizens 
(and anyone interested) to comment and suggest amendments to legislative 
acts in the procedure for adoption.
The second case study captures the experience of professionals working in the 
Municipality of Ljubljana (MoL) – an interesting research site due to the exist-
ence of innovative collaborative practices with citizens, specifically within the 
framework of the Service for Citizens’ Initiatives (see Vrbek and Jukić, 2021). 
Just like the first case, the Mol resembles a traditional administrative envi-
ronment marked by hierarchy and a top-down approach. However, a specific 
feature of this case is that the same Mayor has run the municipality ever since 
2006. He has established himself as the key figure influencing the strategic 
direction of municipal development, inter alia regarding the introduction of 
a citizen-oriented approach to the work of the municipal administration and 
institutionalisation of collaboration with external stakeholders (in particular 
citizens). A key innovative practice established upon his direct initiative (Vrbek 
and Jukić, 2021) is the Citizens’ Initiative Service – an interactive online tool 
that enables direct participation and contribution of citizens to the work of 
the municipality by pointing out local problems that need to be fixed and/or 
suggesting ideas for better solution of certain issues under municipal author-
ity. However, to analyse the stance of MoL professionals on co-creation and 
identify co-creation drivers/barriers, we have taken a more general perspec-
tive – beyond specific collaborative projects/practices implemented by the 
municipality (e.g. the Service). This is expected to give us a more realistic idea 
about their attitude regarding co-creation, as well as about the level and qual-
ity of collaboration during the performance of their regular everyday tasks.
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/202242
Sanja Vrbek, Marlot Kuiper
The data for the case studies were gathered in the context of the COGOV 
project – specifically, as part of Working Package 6, which analysed 14 case 
studies of professional involvement in co-creation efforts across Europe. The 
process of data gathering relied on a unified methodology building on two 
key methods – open-ended interviews with managers or ‘lead professionals’ 
and focus group interviews with professionals. Both questionnaires (for the 
interviews and focus groups) captured three main topics: (1) What are the 
main changes professionals experience in their work? (2) How do they deal 
with these changes? and (3) How do professionals believe the process of co-
creation can be improved? By covering these main themes, the aim was to 
learn more about new professional roles and identify the drivers and barriers 
that professionals face when using co-creation in their work. To make sure 
respondents had the time and felt safe to frame their own answers to our 
questions, we asked them to first individually note down their answers. After 
that, we started a group discussion in which professionals shared their views.
All interviews and focus groups sessions were recorded and transcribed ver-
batim. Next, for each case, an extensive report was written, based on a tem-
plate provided by the working package lead partner. The template allowed 
us to relate the findings of our cases to the findings from the literature re-
view, according to the purpose of this paper. Namely, the template directly 
addresses questions in the interview protocols and spells out themes to be 
tackled in the case study reports. Hence, the findings of the two cases pre-
sented in this paper, are based on the case study reports and full transcripts 
of two anonymous interviews and two anonymous focus groups conducted 
in October 2020 (for a detailed insight into the structure of the interviews, 
focus groups and the report see: Hendrikx et al., 2020, Appendix A and B).
Precisely, for the MPA case, we interviewed an office head within the Informa-
tion Society and Informatics Directorate and conducted a focus group with 
seven professionals working on different IT projects. The focus group partici-
pants were professionals from the Information Society and Informatics Direc-
torate and other departments directly engaged in digital projects/platforms 
under the authority of the Ministry (e.g. the Stop Bureaucracy portal). In the 
MoL case, we interviewed a person at a managerial position within the Munici-
pal Police Department and conducted a focus group with four professionals 
from different departments – the City Administration Secretariat, the City In-
spectorate, the Department of Urban Planning and the Department for Real 
Estate. The key criterion for the selection of the professionals for the two case 
studies was contact with service users/external stakeholders as an integral 
part of their professional tasks and/or regular experience with co-creation.
The analysis of the drivers and barriers faced by professionals in the Slovenian 
administrative environment presented in the following chapters rely on both 
the information contained in the case study reports produced in the context 
of the COGOV project and full interview/focus group transcripts.
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/2022 43
Command, Control and Co-Creation: Drivers and Barriers Faced by Professionals Co-Creating 
in the Slovenian Public Sector
4 Co-creation drivers and barriers at the national level – 
the case of the ministry of public administration
4.1 Drivers of co-creation faced by professionals from the 
Ministry of Public Administration
The key driver paving the way for co-creation to be accepted as an attractive 
idea among professionals is the general change of the mainstream discourse 
embracing collaboration with external stakeholders as a crucial aspect for 
successful policymaking. Although this shift has happened mainly at the de-
clarative level, it has set an environment where, in contrast to a decade ago, it 
is no longer appropriate to (publicly) question the need for collaboration and 
participation of external actors.
Hence, MPA professionals strongly and genuinely believe in collaboration 
with external stakeholders (citizens or businesses – depending on the type 
of the service) as the most important phase of service creation/renewal. Pre-
cisely this attitude emerges as the key driver that stimulates them to actively 
create opportunities and engage in co-creation (even in the absence of sys-
temic institutional support). However, in addition to the ‘moral’ aspect of 
their support to co-creation as the right way to do things, there is also a more 
‘pragmatic’ side, as MPA professionals recognise a strong interest in applying 
co-creation in their work. At the personal level, this is explained as finding an 
intellectual stimulus and challenge in their work; while at the organisational 
level, their interest to engage in co-creation derives from their desire to bet-
ter promote new services among potential users. Interestingly, in the context 
of the latter, co-creation is referred to as a promotion tool – a free advertise-
ment of new services provided by their organisation.
Moreover, the internalisation of co-creation ideas by MPA professionals has 
been largely facilitated by the very nature of the work they perform – im-
plying more decentralised and project-based activities that are inherently 
compatible with collaborative innovations. Thus, collaboration with external 
stakeholders has been more easily incorporated as an additional aspect of 
their regular work activities than it would have been if their direct work envi-
ronment or tasks were more traditionally and hierarchically organised.
Eventually, despite a general lack of regular and systemic institutional sup-
port to co-creation, the Inovativen.si project – an EU project implemented by 
the MPA – has been pointed out as a ‘safety net’ offering concrete support 
to professionals (e.g. consultation, facilitation, etc.) when faced with acute 
challenges related to collaborative innovations. In addition to Inovativen.si, 
acknowledgement has been made of the work of the Administrative Acad-
emy as a body providing training to public servants, inter alia on the topic of 
collaboration.
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/202244
Sanja Vrbek, Marlot Kuiper
Table 1: Co-creation drivers recognised by MPA professionals
Co-creation drivers for MPA professionals
Change of the general discourse and recognition of collaboration with 
external stakeholders as a crucial aspect for successful policymaking
Strong and genuine belief in co-creation as the right approach to work
A professional interest in applying co-creation
Nature of the work performed by professionals – featuring decentralised 
and project-based activities
Direct institutional support to co-creation initiatives
Training opportunities
Source: own
4.2 Barriers to co-creation faced by professionals from the 
Ministry of Public Administration
The last decade has been marked by political instability and frequent chang-
es in government. In the period between 2012 and 2020, five governments 
changed (the incumbent one being the fifth) and only one managed to stay 
in power for the full term (from 2014 to 2018). This has had a very negative 
and disruptive effect on professionals, as each new political leadership of-
ten undermines the work done in the previous term – by aborting already 
implemented projects and setting new goals. Moreover, political changes not 
only affect the highest managerial levels but also the lower levels within the 
public sector hierarchy. These changes profoundly affect digitalisation as a 
strategic priority, which apart from declarative support has not received the 
attention it deserves. As a key argument in this regard, professionals point 
out that Slovenia does not have a digitalisation strategy – the one adopted in 
2016 covered the period until 2020 (Digitalna Slovenija, 2016). Such a negli-
gent attitude by the highest political levels is interpreted by professionals as 
being left on their own in pursuing the digitalisation agenda.
These developments (at both the political and strategic levels) are identified 
as the key barriers for professionals to co-create. Namely, the fear among the 
political leaders of being quickly removed from office makes them press on 
professionals to deliver fast solutions – often at the detriment of co-creation. 
Moreover, political changes and the lack of strategy imply that professionals 
need to constantly adapt and establish relations with the new leadership, in-
stead of focusing on their professional tasks (including co-creation). Precisely 
the limbo of priorities and strategic direction makes them confused as to 
where to invest their efforts and knowledge. The underlying problem is that 
regardless of which political option comes to power, there is a general lack of 
knowledge and support to co-creation across ideological lines.
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/2022 45
Command, Control and Co-Creation: Drivers and Barriers Faced by Professionals Co-Creating 
in the Slovenian Public Sector
In addition to the political and strategic barriers, professionals note three or-
ganisational barriers to co-creation. The first one refers to the unfortunate 
2018 integration of two substantially different directorates into the Informa-
tion Society and Informatics Directorate, which diverted the focus from the 
development of new digital solutions to operational support. However, the 
mistake was soon recognised and eliminated by the (re)establishment of the 
Information Technology Directorate and Information Society Directorate (see 
GOV.SI, 2021).
The second organisational barrier stems from the lack of co-operation among 
ministries, as well as the lack of awareness of the importance of co-creation 
within other ministries. Although MPA professionals are only responsible for 
the digitalisation of public services owned by other ministries, in practice they 
often find themselves in a position to develop and co-create these services 
as a whole – i.e. by identifying needs on the ground, contacting service users, 
pushing for legislative changes, drawing process models for service provision, 
etc. The higher demand for more digital services resulting from the Covid-19 
crisis only intensified this problem and added additional workload on MPA 
professionals. As a solution to this unsustainable situation, they see ministries 
as service owners taking the lion’s share of service development, including co-
creation with different stakeholders and MPA professionals as internal ‘rel-
evant’ stakeholders. Unfortunately, due to the indifference and ignorance of 
their colleagues from other ministries, this scenario seems impossible.
The third organisational barrier relates to the rigid rules defining the work 
of professionals. Namely, due to the lack of domestic interest and support, 
co-creation initiatives are usually financed by EU projects. This implies clear 
(if not rigid) deadlines for implementation, which collides with the very idea 
of co-creation as an unpredictable process that cannot be confined in tight 
timeframes. Moreover, co-creation often requires work beyond the tradi-
tional workday – e.g. during weekends, afternoons and evenings yet the rules 
applying in the public sector are not flexible enough to recognise and value 
such activities. The rigid system of salary and incentives also emerges as a bar-
rier to attracting experienced professionals from the private sector. Regard-
less of their accomplishments and years of service in the private sector, they 
would – in case of a transfer – need to start from scratch.
The last group of barriers identified by professionals affects their relationship 
with external stakeholders. The issue identified as the most problematic in 
such regard is the lack of structured guidance and support during co-creation, 
in particular in the phases of identification and inclusion of external stakehold-
ers. There are no developed strategies for mobilisation of external stakehold-
ers, nor are specific techniques used, such as stakeholder analysis. Moreover, 
professionals lack facilitation skills deemed important for the conduct of the 
very act of co-creation. Despite this awareness of their weaknesses, they are 
not provided with systematic and regular training. Therefore they often im-
provise or act in an ad-hoc manner – to the best of their ability and creativity.
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/202246
Sanja Vrbek, Marlot Kuiper
Eventually, an external barrier over which professionals do not have much 
power is the interest and capacity of external stakeholders to contribute to 
the process of co-creation. In this context, as a specific feature of Slovenia, 
professionals point out the strong ideological cleavage between ‘right’ and 
‘left’ among common people, which could represent an irreconcilable barrier 
to constructive co-creation among citizens belonging to different ideological 
‘poles’.
Table 2: Co-creation barriers recognised by MPA professionals
Co-creation barriers for MPA professionals
Political instability 
Absence of digitalisation strategy
Pressure on professionals to deliver fast solutions
Lack of cooperation among ministries
Lack of knowledge and indifference about co-creation among 
professionals from other ministries
Rigid rules defining the work of professionals
Lack of institutional support to co-creation
Lack of skills relevant for co-creation
Capacity and willingness by external stakeholders to constructively 
participate in co-creation
Highly politicised/polarised society along ideological lines
Source: own
5 Co-creation drivers and barriers at the local level –  
the case of the Ljubljana municipality
5.1 Drivers of co-creation faced by professionals from the 
Municipality of Ljubljana
As the key driver for the establishment of innovative collaborative practic-
es, MoL professionals unequivocally point out the strong support by the top 
leadership – foremost, the Mayor as well as the lower levels within the hier-
archy (down to the heads of units). Without explicit support and ‘green light’ 
by their superiors, professionals would not dare to take an independent initia-
tive, which confirms the perception of the municipality as a rather traditional 
and hierarchical environment. Interestingly, the top leadership (both political 
and managerial) has been recognised as the most responsible for fostering 
a collaborative culture internally, by building trust among employees from 
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/2022 47
Command, Control and Co-Creation: Drivers and Barriers Faced by Professionals Co-Creating 
in the Slovenian Public Sector
different departments. Thus, overcoming silos is recognised as an additional 
driver for professionals to collaborate not only internally, but also with exter-
nal actors.
As a related driver, MoL professionals note a clear legal basis regulating the 
inclusion of the public in decision-making. Although the existing legislative 
framework is not recognised as problematic as no specific legal acts prohibit 
professionals from engaging in co-creation, professionals argue in favour of a 
more explicit legal basis regulating collaboration with citizens in the context 
of their tasks. This gives an impression that professionals do not feel confident 
to go beyond the letter of the law and initiate (new forms of) collaboration in-
dependently. Although pointed out as a driver, this reveals a mind-set of legal 
positivism, which can emerge as a barrier since co-creation requires a softer, 
unregulated approach prone to experimentation and ‘learning by doing’.
Therefore, it cannot come as a surprise that the Citizens’ Initiative Service is 
noted as one of the key co-creation drivers providing an official institutional 
platform for collaboration with citizens. Precisely the institutionalisation of this 
collaborative practice – in terms of its integration in the structure of the munici-
pality and the regular work tasks – gave professionals a sense of authority and 
the right/obligation to collaborate with citizens. In addition to the Service, there 
are also various international projects implemented by the MoL that set col-
laboration with external stakeholders as a key aspect of implementation (e.g. 
the European Green Capital). Eventually, as an important co-creation driver for 
citizens, professionals point out the high public trust their municipality enjoys, 
which is built by the provision of efficient and high-quality public services.
Table 3: Co-creation drivers recognised by MoL professionals
Co-creation drivers for MoL professionals
Strong support by the top (political) leadership
Explicit legal basis requiring collaboration with external stakeholders
Official institutional platform for collaboration 
International projects (e.g. EU funded projects)
High public trust in the municipality
Source: own
5.2 Co-creation barriers faced by professionals from the 
Municipality of Ljubljana
The main co-creation barrier has not been explicitly defined as such by MoL 
professionals but has been induced from their answers – namely, the lack of 
understanding of collaboration, in particular of the concept of co-creation. 
Collaboration is usually defined very narrowly, in terms of communication and 
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/202248
Sanja Vrbek, Marlot Kuiper
cooperation among different departments to perform tasks under municipal 
authority; or inter-institutional cooperation with central level organs, e.g. 
ministries, the police, etc. Although collaboration with the public is pointed 
out as an important aspect of the work of professionals, this is often under-
stood as a one-way communication during service delivery – from profession-
als to service users.
The dominant (traditional) identity of professionals as subjects who derive their 
authority and leverage exclusively from the existing legal framework emerges 
as an additional barrier to co-creation. Therefore, even when referring to more 
substantial types of collaboration with external stakeholders, they stick to ex-
isting formats/procedures of participation prescribed by the law or specific 
practices of collaboration institutionalised by the municipality (i.e. the Service 
for Citizens’ Initiatives). Precisely, their prime professional identity as ‘guard-
ians of the law’ largely explains their narrow (if not mistaken) understanding of 
collaboration as a one-way channel for informing citizens about formal proce-
dures and service provision to claim their rights as prescribed by law.
Moreover, the ‘identity’ aspect can also explain the professionals’ lack of trust 
in the capacity of citizens (e.g. their knowledge or sense of aesthetics) to con-
structively contribute to the work of the municipality. Namely, there is an evi-
dent feeling of superiority among professionals, which in combination with the 
lack of understanding of the idea of co-creation does not leave much room for 
accepting citizens as equal partners. An additional barrier here is the problem 
of competing values and interests between professionals and citizens, where 
the former are usually (self-)perceived as ‘guardians’ of the public interest, 
while the latter are seen as subjects pursuing personal, particularistic interests.
Moreover, professionals mention the lack of mandate and authority for im-
plementing changes. Namely, the adoption of many citizens’ initiatives re-
quires cross-sectoral or cross-institutional cooperation, which could challenge 
co-creation. Hence, even when the municipality is keen on supporting citizen 
initiatives, it might fail to implement them because of shared authority with 
other (central level) institutions that do not see an interest or feel the same 
pressure for a solution as the MoL does.
Professionals argue that the very nature of their tasks rarely leaves room for 
co-creation with citizens. As particularly unsuitable for co-creation they point 
out the work of the municipal police as a repressive organ; of departments 
dealing with the very final phase of service delivery; and of bodies whose 
actions are strictly regulated (e.g. the municipal inspectorate). Moreover, al-
though professionals recognised the policy areas they cover as (over)regu-
lated, this is not considered necessarily bad. Instead, they warn that a looser 
regulative framework might stimulate unlawful behaviour, thus additionally 
confirming their general distrust of citizens.
Eventually, barriers to co-creation also include the lack of interest by citizens 
to contribute constructively to the work of the municipality, as well as their 
pressure for fast change. Regarding the former, it is argued that citizens 
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/2022 49
Command, Control and Co-Creation: Drivers and Barriers Faced by Professionals Co-Creating 
in the Slovenian Public Sector
usually expect to get free services/benefits instead of contributing their re-
sources. Citizens are also criticised for having unrealistic expectations, being 
impatient and pressing for fast change even when this is not possible (due to 
political negotiations, adoption and implementation activities). Not only this 
can cause disappointment among citizens in the short run, but can – in the 
long run – negatively affect trust in the public organisation and thus under-
mine one of the key drivers for co-creation for external actors (noted in the 
previous sub-chapter).
Table 4: Co-creation barriers recognised by MoL professionals
Co-creation barriers for MoL professionals
Lack of understanding of the idea of co-creation
Traditional identity, i.e. role of professionals as ‘guardians of the law’
Sense of superiority over citizens
Shared institutional authority (e.g. with the central level)
Nature of tasks
Lack of interest by citizens to collaborate
Expectations by citizens for fast change
Source: own
6 Conclusion
The analysis of the two case studies paints an image of the Slovenian pub-
lic sector as a traditional administrative environment – implying a hierarchi-
cal and centralised setting that embeds the logic of ‘command and control’. 
Nevertheless, the very existence of collaborative innovations in the Slovenian 
context confirms the conclusions of Voorberg et al. (2017) that the ‘tradition-
al’ administrative context does not necessarily hinder the establishment of 
units – ‘islands’ of experimentation (as in the MPA case). In certain cases (as in 
the MoL case), such a context can even emerge as a driver for the institution-
alisation of collaborative practices with citizens. The latter, however, requires 
a strong political figure who recognises the importance of co-creation with 
external actors and capitalises on the traditional top-down environment to 
implement such practices.
Precisely this aspect – strong political support – is recognised by profession-
als at both national and local levels of governance as the key driver of being 
empowered and/or in authority to co-create with external actors. Moreover, 
the fact that political support was present in one case and not in the other 
provides an additional perspective on its strength. Namely, in the MoL case, 
where political support/pressure for collaboration with citizens was present, 
professionals changed their behaviour in this direction, but only when this 
was explicitly required from them. This, however, has not equalled genuine 
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/202250
Sanja Vrbek, Marlot Kuiper
transformation of their state of mind and thus embracement of co-creation 
as a standard ‘way of doing things’ during the performance of their (other) 
professional tasks. The fact that MoL professionals collaborate with citizens 
predominantly in the context of the Service – as an official framework for col-
laboration with citizens – or when observing the law indicates that in the case 
of a political or legal change they will not have problems adapting to the new 
situation that significantly diverts from the present state of play. In contrast 
to the MoL case, MPA professionals managed to develop strong awareness 
about the need for co-creation in the absence of political support and in a 
rather unfavourable environment due to political instability.
Hence, although political support at the highest level emerges as the most 
important issue for securing concrete and visible changes on the ground (e.g. 
institutionalisation of collaborative practices), it is not a sufficient factor for 
socialisation and actual internalisation of co-creation ideas among profes-
sionals. Instead, the drivers for securing more profound changes towards ac-
ceptance of co-creation rather include their professional identity and recogni-
tion of interest (be it personal or collective/organisational) in collaboration. 
Regarding these two drivers, we note some differences between the cases, 
which are relevant in the light of the literature review presented in chapter 2.
Firstly, we do see differences in how professionals identify themselves as 
‘professionals’ and consequently how they employ co-creation in their work. 
Some professionals (e.g. the MoL case) still rely on the image of professionals 
as ‘experts’ and ‘guardians of the law’ – thereby differentiating themselves 
from other stakeholders based on their ‘technical base’ (cf. Wilensky, 1964) 
and defining co-creation mostly as ‘one-sided’ communication from ‘experts’ 
to service users. Professionals that presume a predominantly one-dimension-
al role as ‘guardians of the law’ (in the traditional Weberian sense) rather than 
‘lead professionals’ or ‘collaborative partners’ (cf. Moynihan and Thomas, 
2013) do not have the capacity to practice co-creation. Their ‘natural’ inclina-
tion towards a legal positivist approach does not leave much leeway for ex-
perimentation or inclusion of external stakeholders beyond what is stipulated 
by the law or required by their superiors.
Secondly, we see a difference between the recognition of interest in and ‘fit-
ness’ for co-creation and the very nature of professionals’ work. For instance, 
MoL professionals who regarded the nature of their work as repressive (e.g. 
municipal police and inspectorate) and strongly regulated noted less room for 
the implementation of co-creation in their everyday tasks. In contrast, inter-
nalisation of co-creation ideas by the MPA professionals was largely facilitat-
ed by the very nature of the work they perform – implying more decentralised 
and project-based activities that are inherently compatible with collaborative 
innovations. Thus, co-creation more naturally fits their institutionalised pro-
fessional values and practices. This corresponds to the findings of van Gestel 
et al. (2019) who recognise social workers as more apt to internalise NPG ini-
tiatives (collaborative practices and client-centeredness) compared to teach-
ers and doctors, precisely because of the good fit between the nature of their 
work and their professional values.
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/2022 51
Command, Control and Co-Creation: Drivers and Barriers Faced by Professionals Co-Creating 
in the Slovenian Public Sector
Although identity change is a complicated and long-term challenge, the expe-
rience of MPA professionals indicates that such a change can be stimulated by 
reflection and recognition of both individual and collective benefits from co-
creation. However, even the ‘right identity’ – implying awareness and desire 
to co-create – and the initiation of collaborative projects are not sufficient if 
professionals lack appropriate skills. This requires a strategic orientation by 
public institutions to secure regular and systematic capacity building, as well 
as the creation of a more responsive environment that appropriately values 
the collaborative innovation efforts made by professionals. Similarly, as in 
other ‘Western’ administrative contexts, Slovenian professionals are expect-
ed to simply embrace co-creation initiatives, whereby the complexity of what 
this demands from professionals in terms of their professional repertoire is 
overlooked. However, the fact that they have insufficient training on this mat-
ter comes with the risk of further applying their familiar professional prac-
tices and frames (Noordegraaf et al., 2016; Tuurnas, 2015) under a new ‘label’.
Eventually, the MPA case draws attention to the fact that collaboration with 
external parties should not overshadow the importance of inter-institution-
al collaboration, i.e. among the ‘relevant’ actors of co-creation. Namely, al-
though professionals within the ministry acted as ‘frontrunners’ who genu-
inely believe in co-creation, they were faced with insurmountable challenges 
due to the indifference by other responsible ministries, which confirms the 
importance of crossing borders both across and within organisations (see also 
Kuiper and van Gestel, 2021).
This paper represents the initial step for the detection of co-creation drivers 
and barriers professionals face within the Slovenian administrative context. 
However, to draw more universal conclusions about their experience we need 
a larger number of empirical cases at both the local and national levels, refer-
ring to various types of public organisations and policy areas. Hopefully, this 
will be addressed by future research, which should secure additional evidence 
and thus the basis for strategic action against the impediments profession-
als face when applying co-creation in different organisational and policy set-
tings. Moreover, this research provides valuable input that can be used in the 
context of a comparative analysis of co-creation drivers and barriers faced by 
professionals across Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Such a perspective will 
contribute significantly to the literature on co-creation for better understand-
ing the impact of administrative traditions – especially when they do not fit the 
idea(l) of favourable context for co-creation, as painted by the present litera-
ture (dominated by the Anglo-Saxon and Nordic administrative experience). 
Eventually, this can have great practical consequences for CEE public sectors, 
by providing directions and ideas for larger-scale reforms towards the intro-
duction of co-creation as the standard way of policy-making/service provision.
FUNDING INFORMATION
This research received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research 
and innovation programme under grant agreement No. 770591.
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/202252
Sanja Vrbek, Marlot Kuiper
References
Adams, T. L. (2020). Professional employees and professional managers: 
conflicting logics, hybridity, and restratification. Journal of Professions and 
Organization, 7(1), pp. 101–115.
Aschhoff, N. and Vogel, R. (2019). Something old, something new, something 
borrowed: Explaining varieties of professionalism in citizen collaboration 
through identity theory. Public Administration, 97(3), pp. 703–720.
Bastin, C. and Weinberg, F. (2018). Building Community on the Outskirts of the 
City. In: Challenging the city scale: Journeys in People-Centred Design. Basel: 
Birkhäuser, pp. 53–64.
Barile, S. et al. (2012). Structure and dynamics of a “T-Shaped” knowledge: From 
individuals to cooperating communities of practice. Service Science, 4(2), pp. 
161–180.
Blomgren, M. (2003). Ordering a profession: Swedish nurses encounter New 
Public Management reforms. Financial Accountability and Management, 19 
(1), pp. 45–71.
Brandsen, T., Steen, T. and Verschuere, B. (2018). Co-production and co-creation: 
Engaging citizens in public services. New York: Routledge.
Bryson, J. M., Crosby, B. C. and Bloomberg, L. (2014). Public value governance: 
Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public 
management. Public administration review, 74(4), pp. 445–456.
Campbell, D., (2012). Public managers in integrated services collaboratives: What 
works is workarounds. Public Administration Review, 72(5), pp. 721–730.
Dečman, M. (2019). Co-governance on a local level: the analysis of the “Citizens’ 
initiatives” service in the Slovenian municipality of Ljubljana. E-Proceedings 
of the 27th NISPAcee Annual Conference, Czech Republic, Prague, 24-26 
May. At <https://www.nispa.org/files/conferences/2019/e-proceedings/
system_files/papers/co-governance-at-the-local-decman.pdf>, accessed 17 
March 2022.
Dent, M. et al. (2016). General introduction: The changing world of professions 
and professionalism. In M. Dent, I. L. Bourgeault, J. Denis and E. Kuhlmann, 
eds., The Routledge companion to the professions and professionalism. 
London: Routledge.
Digitalna Slovenija – Strategija razvoja informacijske družbe do leta 2020. (2016). 
At <https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MJU/DID/Strategija-razvoja-
informacijske-druzbe-2020.pdf>, accessed 14 December 2021.
Dixon, J. et al. (2021). The Co-Creation Compass Creating Public Value Together: 
from Research to Action. Interactive policy brief issue 27/2021. Brussels: The 
Lisbon Council. At <https://lisboncouncil.net/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/
LISBON_COUNCIL_The-Co-Creation-Compass.pdf>, accessed 17 March 2022.
Engen, M. et al. (2020). Continuing the development of the public service logic: a 
study of value co-destruction in public services. Public Management Review, 
23(6), pp. 886–905, DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2020.1720354.
Etzioni A. (ed.) (1969). Semi-professions and Their Organization. London: The 
Free Press.
Evetts, J. (2009). New professionalism and new public management: Changes, 
continuities and consequences. Comparative sociology, 8(2), pp. 247–266.
Gov.si. (2022). About the Ministry of Public Administration. At <https://www.gov.
si/en/state-authorities/ministries/ministry-of-public-administration/about-
the-ministry/>, accessed 9 February 2022.
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/2022 53
Command, Control and Co-Creation: Drivers and Barriers Faced by Professionals Co-Creating 
in the Slovenian Public Sector
Farrell, C. and Morris, J. (2003). The ‘neo-bureaucratic’ state: Professionals, 
managers and professional managers in schools, general practices and social 
work. Organization, 10(1), pp. 129–156.
Freidson, E. (1970). Profession of Medicine: A Study of the Sociology of Applied 
Knowledge. New York: Harper Row.
Freidson, E. (1994). Professionalism reborn: Theory, prophecy and policy. 
Cambridge: Polity Press.
Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism, the third logic: On the practice of 
knowledge. University of Chicago press.
Hendrikx W., Kuiper M. and van Gestel N. (2020). Public Value and Co-Creation 
in the Renewal of Public Agencies across Europe: Deliverable 6.1. At <http://
cogov.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/D61.pdf>, accessed 14 December 
2021.
Hill, H. C. (2003). Understanding implementation: Street-level bureaucrats’ 
resources for reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 
13(3), pp. 265–282.
Hržica, R. et al. (2021) Organizational Readiness for Co-Creation of Public 
Services in the Central and Eastern European Administrative Tradition: 
Development of the Conceptual Multi-Attribute Decision Support Model. 
NISPAcee Journal of Public Administration and Policy, 14 (1), pp. 169–214. 
https://doi.org/10.2478/nispa-2021-0007
Hupe, P. L. and Hill, M. J. (2016). ‘And the rest is implementation.’ Comparing 
approaches to what happens in policy processes beyond Great Expectations. 
Public Policy and Administration, 31(2), pp. 103–121.
Hupe, P., Hill, M. and Buffat, A. (ed.) (2016). Understanding street-level 
bureaucracy. Bristol: Policy Press.
Jilke, S. and Tummers, L. (2018). Which clients are deserving of help? A 
theoretical model and experimental test. Journal of Public Administration 
Research and Theory, 28(2), pp. 226–238.
Kuhlmann, E., Allsop, J. and Saks, M. (2009). Professional governance and public 
control: a comparison of healthcare in the United Kingdom and Germany. 
Current Sociology, 57(4), pp. 511–528.
Jukić, T. et al. (2019). Collaborative Innovation in Public Administration: 
Theoretical Background and Research Trends of Co-Production and Co-
Creation. Administrative Sciences MDPI, 9(4), pp. 1–17.
Klun, M. and Stare, J. (2019). Participatory Budgeting at Local Level in Slovenia. 
Conference Proceedings ‘Transylvanian International Conference in Public 
Administration’, Romania, Cluj-Napoca, 24-26 October. At <https://www.
apubb.ro/intconf/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/TICPA_Proceedings_2019.
pdf>, accessed 14 December 2021.
Kuiper, M. and van Gestel, N. (2021). Reforms in Social policy: professionals in 
PERSPCT, Drechtsteden (The Netherlands. Case study report, as input for 
Deliverable 6.2. At <http://cogov.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/D6-2.
pdf>, accessed 14 December 2021.
Leicht, K. T. et al. (2009). New public management and new professionalism 
across nations and contexts. Current Sociology, 57(4), pp. 581–605.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public 
service. Expanded ed. Edition. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/202254
Sanja Vrbek, Marlot Kuiper
Magnussen, S. and Rønning, R. (2021). Creating Value in Public Services: The 
Struggle between Private and Public Interests? The Innovation Journal: The 
Public Sector Innovation Journal, 26(1), pp. 1–17.
McDermott, A. M. et al. (2015). From bipartite to tripartite devolved HRM in 
professional service contexts: Evidence from hospitals in three countries. 
Human Resource Management, 54(5), pp. 813–831.
Moynihan, D. P. and Thomas, J. C. (2013). Citizen, Customer, Partner: Rethinking 
the Place of the Public in Public Management. Public Administration Review, 
73(6), pp. 786–796.
Noordegraaf, M. (2007). From “pure” to “hybrid” professionalism: Present-day 
professionalism in ambiguous public domains. Administration & Society, 
39(6), pp. 761–785.
Noordegraaf, M. (2015). Public management: Performance, professionalism and 
politics. Surrey: Palgrave Macmillan International Higher Education.
Noordegraaf, M. et al. (2016). Cultural complementarity: reshaping professional 
and organizational logics in developing frontline medical leadership. Public 
Management Review, 18(8), pp. 1111–1137.
Noordegraaf, M. and Steijn, A. J. (eds.) (2014). Professionals under pressure: 
Perspectives on professionals and professionalism. Amsterdam: Amsterdam 
University Press.
Numerato, D., Salvatore, D. and Fattore, G. (2012). The impact of management 
on medical professionalism: a review. Sociology of health & illness, 34(4), pp. 
626–644.
Osborne, Stephen P. (ed.). 2010. The New Public Governance? Emerging 
Perspectives on the Theory and Practice of Public Governance. Oxon: 
Routledge.
Osborne, Stephen P., Nasi, G. and Powell, M. (2021). Beyond Co-Production: 
Value Creation and Public Services. Public Administration, 99(4), pp. 641–657. 
https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12718
Painter, M. and Peters, B. G. (eds.). 2010. Tradition and Public Administration. 
London: Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Parrado, S. et al. (2013). Correlates of Co-production: Evidence From a Five-
Nation Survey of Citizens. International Public Management Journal, 16(1), 
pp. 85–112, DOI: 10.1080/10967494.2013.796260.
Regal, B. and Ferlie, E. (eds.). (2020). Deliverable 2.3: Patterns of strategic 
renewals. At <http://cogov.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/D2-3.pdf>, 
accessed 14 December 2021.
Sehested, K. (2002). How new public management reforms challenge the roles 
of professionals. International Journal of Public Administration, 25(12), pp. 
1513–1537.
Steen, T. and Tuurnas, S. (2018). Roles of professionals in co-production and 
co-creation processes. In T. Brandsen, T. Steen and B. Verschuere, eds., Co-
production and co-creation. New York: Routledge, pp. 80–92.
Thomas, R. and Davies, A. (2005). Theorizing the micropolitics of resistance: 
New Public Management and managerialidentities in the UK public services. 
Organization Studies, 26(5), pp. 683–706.
Torfing, J. (2019). Collaborative innovation in the public sector: The argument. 
Public Management Review, 21(1), pp. 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/147190
37.2018.1430248.
Central European Public Administration Review, Vol. 20, No. 1/2022 55
Command, Control and Co-Creation: Drivers and Barriers Faced by Professionals Co-Creating 
in the Slovenian Public Sector
Torfing, J., Sørensen, E. and Røiseland, A. (2019). Transforming the Public Sector 
Into an Arena for Co-Creation: Barriers, Drivers, Benefits, and Ways Forward. 
Administration & Society, 51(5), pp. 795–825.
Tummers, L. L., Bekkers, V., Vink, E. and Musheno, M. (2015). Coping during 
public service delivery: A conceptualization and systematic review of the 
literature. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 25(4), pp. 
1099–1126.
Tuurnas, S. (2015). Learning to co-produce? The perspective of public service 
professionals. International Journal of Public Sector Management, 28(7), pp. 
583–598.
Tuurnas, S. (2016). The professional side of co-production. Doctoral thesis. 
Tampere: Tampere University Press.
van Bockel, J. and Noordegraaf, M. (2006). Identifying identities: performance-
driven, but professional public managers. International Journal of Public 
Sector Management, 19(6), pp. 585–597.
van Gestel, N., Kuiper, M. and Hendrikx, W. (2019). Changed roles and strategies 
of professionals in the (co) production of public services. Administrative 
Sciences, 9(3), 59.
van de Grift, E., Cuppen, E. and Spruit, S. (2020). Co-creation, control or 
compliance? How Dutch community engagement professionals view their 
work. Energy Research & Social Science, 60, 101323.
Verheijen, T. (2010). The New Member States of the European Union: 
Constructed and Historical Traditions and Reform Trajectories. In M. Painter 
and B. G. Peters, eds., Tradition and Public Administration. London: Palgrave 
Macmillan UK, pp. 217–233.
Voorberg, W., Bekkers, V., Timeus, K., Tonurist, P. and Tummers L. (2017) 
Changing public service delivery: learning in co-creation. Policy and Society, 
36(2), pp. 178–194. DOI: 10.1080/14494035.2017.1323711.
Vrbek, S. (2020). Service for Citizens’ Initiatives in the City of Ljubljana. In B. Regal 
and E. Ferlie, eds., Deliverable 2.3: Patterns of strategic renewals. At <http://
cogov.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/D2-3.pdf>, accessed 14 December 2021.
Vrbek, S. and Jukić, T. (2021). Co-creation and co-production of public 
services and policies: conceptual definition and situation in the Slovenian 
administrative environment. In J. Stare and M. Pečarič, eds., The science of 
public administration. Ljubljana: Faculty of Public Administration, pp. 485–505.
Weir, N.M. et al. (2019). Factors influencing national implementation of 
innovations within community pharmacy: a systematic review applying the 
Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. Implementation 
Science, 14(21), pp. 1–16.
Wilensky, H. L. (1964). The professionalization of everyone? American journal of 
sociology, 70(2), pp. 137–158.
Zacka, B. (2017). When the state meets the street. Cambridge Massachusetts, 
London England: Harvard University Press.