Drawing from collaborative public management, this article seeks to contribute to public service logic by focusing on what precedes the public service user’s realization of value: the value proposition. A new care model for elderly people with multiple chronic diseases shows that coordinators with an inter-organizational mission, vertical and horizontal supporting structures, trust established through relationships, and recognition of service systems’ embeddedness in social systems are pivotal for the ability of public service organizations to develop coordinated value propositions. The contribution to policy and practice is an increased understanding of a coherent, rather than fragmented, welfare system for users/citizens.

Although the public service logic (PSL) has been an important equipoise to the predominant goods-manufacturing logic, there is potential to broaden its scope. An explicit integration of social context may contribute to an enhanced conceptual understanding of the PSL, at the same time addressing a major challenge in healthcare: disparities among population groups. A ‘representative co-production’ approach is suggested. In such an approach, group representatives’ knowledge and skills are used in evaluating, designing, and delivering services with the purpose of supporting other group members’ value co-creation. A case is provided, demonstrating representative co-production in access to preventive health services.

This paper addresses a service approach in public management by highlighting the insufficiently explored concept of resource integration. Specifically, we identify the actors who contribute to such integration, as well as the kind of resources they bring. The empirical material draws from two action research cases in cancer care, suggesting that, for complex challenges, resource‐integrating actors may represent public, private and third‐sector organizations, citizens/service users, as well as their private spheres. Moreover, resources may be both tangible and, more importantly, intangible. Because all actors in the system are doing the same thing – integrating resources – multi‐actor resource integration frames interorganizational collaboration and citizen/user co‐production. In contrast to the private sector's foci on profit and customer satisfaction, the gain herein concerns better usage of common resources and addressing public interests – such as access to services that meet the needs of disregarded groups. In the complex realities of contemporary societies, actors from all sectors should help meet such needs through collaborative resource integration rather than competition.

Citizen dialogues and other participatory practices are basically the norm in contemporary spatial planning. Nonetheless, what happens to citizen input after it has been collected – how it is handled and utilized by planners in the continuation of the planning process – has been described as a ‘black box’, where most stakeholders lack insight. The aim of this explorative study is to open this black box and examine how citizen input is handled by local planning professionals. This practice lacks a common language and form among the studied municipalities, but the analysis reveals that it takes the form of a ‘sorting process’ in which input is categorized, evaluated and structured in preparation for its integration into final plans. The paper outlines the basic logics and considerations that guide this sorting process, and distinguishes between two modes, which have been termed ‘inclusive’ and ‘selective’ sorting. These modes determine how input is categorized and assessed. The analysis indicates that multiple micro-decisions are made throughout the sorting process, and that these decisions influence the input that reaches formal decision-making bodies, and in what form. The results reveal the power exercised by municipal planning actors and how they affect the destiny of the received citizen input.

Using six focus groups with frontline employees within the Swedish sick-leave service, this article explores the co-creation/destruction of value. The article both adheres to and questions the public service logic by utilizing an empirical case in which frontline staff represents not one, but multiple, public service organizations. Moreover, as value creation/destruction is not restricted to one beneficiary, and several beneficiaries can be tied to one single service, the research builds upon this notion and distinguishes between four levels of value creation/destruction.