Co-creation as a strategy for expanding networks and creating a broader collaboration profile for implementing integration policies

Abstract European studies have identified the difficulties of local collaboration relations as an obstacle to implementing integration measures. This article’s ambition is to explore co-creation as a strategy for expanding networks and creating a broader collaboration profile for implementing integration policies directed at newly arrived refugees. In the analyses, we have studied and interpreted collaborative processes and extracted their efforts and what key elements describe the processes. Our results suggest that the analysed municipalities employ collaboration in the form of co-creation as a strategy for mobilising experiences, resources and ideas from a plurality of actors to highlight, strengthen and prioritise the integration efforts throughout the municipality organisation. The results suggest that key elements of co-creation as a strategy for improving services for refugees are spokespersons for integration issues and interdisciplinary efforts, along with using their planning and governance system to involve more actors in integration efforts. However, their motivation for these actions seems to not be to exclusively increase a collaboration profile regarding integration issues, but rather to respond to some of the challenges the municipality has regarding complex social challenges.


Introduction
The recent changing scene in Europe regarding the war in Ukraine and emerging refugee crises will increase the pressure on the public sector because it needs to advance the ways of developing practice and improving services for refugee integration. Hence, identifying successful integration ABOUT THE AUTHORS Elisabeth Busengdal (PhD-fellow) Volda University College. elisabeth.busengdal@hivolda.no Elisabeth is a Ph.D. fellow in public planning and administration with a master's degree in community planning and leadership and has a former background as a public planner. She works as a lecturer in the department of planning and public administration at Volda University College. Roar Amdam (Professor in Public planning and leadership) Volda University College. roar.eilev. amdam@hivolda.no Roar is Professor i planning and leadership at Volda University College and have been Head of the master program for 20 years. He has an PhD Dr. Agric, from University of Life Sciences at Ås in Norway.
practice is at the top of the political agenda in many European countries (Dahlberg et al., 2020;Dustmann et al., 2016), and several Scandinavian studies have indicated a significant need for more research on public integration practices (Djuve et al., 2017;Eimhjellen & Segaard, 2016;Heinesen et al., 2013;Hernes et al., 2020).
In Norway, the government offers newly arrived refugees the ability to participate in an introduction programme, which includes language training, social studies and work-and/or educationoriented measures (Integration and Diversity Directorate Imdi, 2021). The Norwegian national government has prepared an integration strategy for 2019-2022 that focuses on implementing measures aimed at education and transitioning to the labour market (Ministry of Education, 2018a). The motive behind the strategy is an increased focus on immigrants' responsibility to participate in the labour market to reduce their reliance on local welfare systems and strengthen their broader social inclusion. Another argument is that being able to take care of oneself and one's family is believed to be essential for individual well-being (Søholt & Tronstad, 2021).
However, several Scandinavian studies have identified difficulties regarding local collaboration relations across municipal levels as an obstacle to implementing measures in the introduction programme and more specified measures aimed at education (Bredal & Orupabo, 2014;Skutlaberg et al., 2014;Tronstad, 2015). Previous research has indicated that local authorities experience problems in implementing integration measures and improving services for refugees such as housing, follow-up health and psychosocial conditions, family guidance and community education, because of low levels of collaboration across municipal levels and a lack of sector responsibility, overall policies, plans and strategies (Bredal & Orupabo, 2014;Eimhjellen & Segaard, 2016;OECD, 2018). Bason (2010) and S. Osborne and Brown (2011) define co-creation as the creation of long-lasting outcomes that aim to address societal needs by fundamentally changing the relationships, positions and rules between the involved stakeholders, thereby crossing organisational boundaries. According to Hooper et al. (2017), to improve the services for newly arrived refugees, municipalities must coordinate with a range of actors, including public employment services and qualification providers, while sustaining the engagement of municipal employees and other civil society actors. Siede and Münch (2022) show that co-production can improve the division of roles and responsibility between volunteers and public actors. At the same time, varying perspectives about implementing integration policy often widen disagreements. Espegren et al. (2019) emphasise that comprehensive collaboration in the form of co-creation among the public, private and voluntary sectors is more likely than less comprehensive models of collaboration to result in more coherent and efficient introduction programmes. However, in their study, they find that co-creation is the rarest form of collaboration. Svendsen and Berg (2018) show that informal networks involving public and private actors are important for enabling immigrants to enter the housing market, find labour and establish social relationships. However, because such networks are often based on volunteering, collaboration is vulnerable.
In Norway, the central government develops the national integration policy, and the municipal level is responsible for implementing the policy (Imdi, 2021). National integration policy leaves the municipalities a large room for manoeuvring in terms of employing local knowledge and experience to find local solutions and measures (Djuve & Kavli, 2014). Public officials' autonomy to act and develop solutions is not only limited by local structural conditions, laws, regulations and established practices, but it is also affected by their values, perceptions, networks and desire to adhere to the letter of the law (Cohen & Aviram, 2021;Van Meter & Van, 1975). As a result, their interpretations of the national policy determine how the policy is implemented. Cohen and Aviram (2021) argue that public officials who interact with the public on a daily basis not only implement policy, but they also influence how it is framed.
The influential role of public officials combined with severe obstacles for local collaboration within the integration field points to a need for enhanced knowledge regarding how municipalities handle collaboration challenges, identify strategies and work to implement integration policies directed at newly arrived refugees.
The previous research has shown that municipalities must coordinate with a range of actors to provide services for refugees and that a lack of collaboration across municipal sectors challenges local integration efforts. In the collaborative governance literature (Ansell & Torfing, 2021;Torfing et al., 2017), co-production and co-creation are framed as strategies for managing the kinds of challenges the public sector employees face when working on integration and providing services for refugees.
The present article describes the approaches from a case study of Norwegian municipalities and gives insights into processes that the informants refer to as co-creation regarding municipal refugee integration efforts. We want to investigate co-creation as a strategy for expanding networks and creating a broader collaboration profile for implementing integration policies. The main aim of this study is to investigate their efforts and what describes the processes by studying the following: How is co-creation employed as a strategy to expand network relations and increase collaboration to provide more integrated services for refugee integration? In the discussion, we extract some aspects of co-creation as a strategy to find key elements and opportunities for change to make the experiences of these municipalities a starting point for others.
Based on the evidence provided in a case study design, we cannot indicate that co-creation as a strategy will result in more coherent or efficient introduction programmes, measures and so forth. However, the article can give more insights into these collaborative processes, expand the perspectives regarding the topic and complement the research literature through the use of several viewpoints regarding co-creation and the implementation of refuge policies at the municipal level. Furthermore, the article can give more general insights to decision makers, applicable not only to the case illustrated, but also to diverse similar contexts and with particular reference to the theme of co-creation in local government.

Theoretical perspective
A lack of coordination and collaboration across governance levels has been identified as the main issue hindering the efficient implementation of high-quality measures in introductory programmes (Bredal & Orupabo, 2014;Skutlaberg et al., 2014;Tronstad, 2015). The difficulties in local collaboration relations highlight the relevance of studying co-creation and co-production as strategies in the case of refugee integration. In public settings, co-creation and co-production are on the agenda, and collaborative governance is often seen as a strategy for handling complex problems in new and more effective ways or for identifying better practices (Agger & Lund, 2017;Ansell & Torfing, 2021;Lund, 2018).
The literature in the present article interacts with both the literature focusing on co-creation and co-production within the collaborative governance literature. Co-creation intersecting with the literature on collaborative innovation and co-production is grounded in literature on intersectoral collaborations. Both co-creation and co-production are based on interactive and dynamic relationships where public value is created not through linear production, but rather through those interactions dealing with the actors' understandings of the problem and need for solutions (S. P. Osborne, 2018). These processes in public service production and policymaking refer to a number of collaborative governance arrangements that are used to mobilise the experiences, resources and ideas of a plurality of public and private actors to create public solutions (OECD, 2011;Torfing et al., 2017).

The link between co-creation and co-production in the public sector
In theory co-creation and co-production is two separate strategies of collaboration, though there are similarities and relations between them. However, in practice when the municipalities use these strategies, they doesn't always separate them. W. Voorberg et al. (2015) conclude that, empirically, co-production and co-creation are used as interchangeable concepts. Røiseland and Lo (2019) argue that co-production operates within current structures, meaning that it is a regular practice in the public and that it deals with how diverse sectors, agencies and organisations come together to deliver more holistic and integrated services but that these collaborations do not necessarily aim to foster creativity and innovations (Torfing et al., 2017). On the other hand, cocreation can be considered a more radical change in the public sector, where actors come together to develop new solutions and innovation.
Co-production implies a process in which public service organisations are dominant. It is a fertile approach for deriving alternative conceptualisations of service provision and problem solving in public services or as a starting point for formulating specific management models and organisational forms that can be considered conservative or typical of public settings. Sorrentino et al. (2018) state that co-production occurs within the existing public service delivery framework and is aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of current arrangements at either the individual or service levels, which is seen as a more traditional form of collaboration in the public sector (Agger & Lund, 2017;Lund, 2018). Røiseland and Lo (2019) argue that co-creation operates within a more radical form to create innovation, where actors challenge established practices, policy silos, current legislative or management systems to create new solutions and improve practice. According to Sorrentino et al. (2018), co-creation involves changes in structures and laws, how the relevant actors act and respond, and the incorporation of new practice requires a strong institutional capacity and organisational will to change and act. Thus, co-creation represents a fracture with the representative tradition of public management in Norwegian municipalities because it is not common for public officials to challenge current structures and laws to find local solutions (Røiseland & Lo, 2019). Despite their differences, co-production and co-creation entail similar practices, such as collaborative governance, community involvement and the participation of multiple actors (W. Voorberg et al., 2015).

Study design
The present article draws upon a qualitative case study of two Norwegian municipalities. A case study design was selected to explore the strategies for implementing integration policies, which is the broader subject of analysis. The power of a case study lies in its focus on the local situation rather than on how it can be generalised to represent other cases (Stake, 2006). As a case study, neither the findings nor the empirical material can be generalised to all municipalities (Thomas, 2016). However, the findings may be relevant beyond the studied cases. In this context, the account of the phenomenon in the studied municipalities can provide an analytical generalisation and provide insights, ideas and experience-based knowledge regarding co-creation in public policy implementation.

Sample
The municipalities were strategically selected based on the following criteria: recognised as exemplary in integrating refugees at the national level and having succeeded in establishing local solutions that presuppose collaboration within and across levels of governance and sectors. Municipality 1 is located in western Norway, with a population between 3,500 and 10,000, an agricultural municipality with relatively small towns and a labour market region of approximately 30,000. Municipality 2 is located in northern Norway, with a population between 20,000 and 50,000, with larger conurbations. The labour market region is approximately 80,000. The two municipalities that are studied have shown the ability to implement relevant measures for labour and education. The municipalities score high on national integration statistics, indicating they have succeeded in placing a high number of refugees into permanent employment or training. In the municipalities, the integration of refugees is embedded at all levels, from top management to caseworkers (at least, as expressed in strategy documents). In the present article, we have selected to investigate an example of systematically implementing co-creation as a strategy. The municipality adopted an integration and diversity perspective, whereby integration has been a consistent focus of all the municipality's plans and measures.
We have chosen to make an interpretation across the cases which give us more insights in their approaches; therefore, the study is not a comparative study. Moreover, the interview data does not provide an adequate foundation for comparison as the case municipalities are quite similar; they have chosen similar solutions and have relatively similar approaches (Stake, 2010).

Data
The data were collected from interviews and a document analysis. The interviews were semistructured individual and group interviews with municipal employees (chief executive, planners, integration coordinator, leader integration office and employees in the integration qualification team). We interviewed a total of 20 informants from the two studied municipalities, the number of interviews was determined due to saturation. A document analysis of the existing planning documents, strategies and relevant case documentation was conducted to determine their motivation for employing co-creation as a form of collaboration and administrative paradigm. Even though integration is a topic in their plans, their approach to co-creation is a more holistic concept as the strategy is implemented for several disciplines. The documents included master plans, programmes of action, thematic plans and sector plans. A document study was not employed as an in-depth analytical tool but was instead used to supplement the interview data.
The sample of informants (Table 1) was based on the assumption that the informants would provide a variety of experiences, perspectives and knowledge relevant to the topic because of their various sector responsibilities and involvement in different areas of integration work. The informants in municipality 01 were recruited directly with permission from the mayor and chief executive. In municipality 02 the recruiting of informants was accomplished through the leader at the refugee office. Here we interviewed fewer informants based on experiences from the data collection in municipality 01. The differences between the positions of the informants are based on how the municipalities have organised their integration work. 01 through the labour and welfare administration, 02 in a municipal refugee office.
The interview questions included items on the municipalities' integration practices, programmes, agenda setters, collaboration and interventions. Questions were also asked about integration and planning practice, planning processes and politics.

Analysis
A thematic analysis approach involves identifying themes by combining codes, components or fragments of ideas and experiences that do not make sense on their own (Braun et al., 2018). In the coding of the data, we used NVivo and a thematic reflexive analysis approach, where coding and analysis was an open interactive process. The transcribed interviews were encoded and analysed using the six steps in a thematic analysis (Braun & Clarke, 2006;Braun et al., 2014Braun et al., , 2018 to find overarching themes in the data. We coded the transcriptions to combine empirical codes with the aim of conveying the informants' experiences, reducing the volume of information yet sustaining the content. The themes have been developed to preserve the informants' experiences ( Table 2). The themes were redefined and categorised in relation to the research questions. After the results section has been written, the text was revised to ensure conformity between the data and text.
In the subsequent sections, we investigate examples where the respective informants give insights into processes that they refer to as co-creation regarding municipal refugee integration efforts. We have studied and interpreted these collaborative processes and tried to extract their efforts and describe the processes. We refer mainly to an example of a process aimed at mobilising multiple actors to coordinate and disperse integration and diversity efforts across all departments in the municipality to improve services.

Filling the concept of co-creation with substance
In the first part of the analyses, we give examples of how the municipalities fill co-creation with content in more general terms, here based on a document study of plans and strategic documents. In this section, strategies of co-creation are not isolated considered as part of providing integrated services for refugees. However, these examples may serve as a helpful framework for studying co-creation as a strategy for expanding networks and creating a broader collaboration profile regarding the implementation of integration policy.

Relevant actors
Collaboration, Co-creation, Co-production, National policies/guidelines, Planning processes, Innovative municipal services, planning and governance systems, Collaboration gives better municipal services, Co-creation is in the present, a co-creation mindset. In the literature, co-creation refers to sharing experiences, resources and ideas among several actors to find solutions to complex problems. Refugee integration is often referred to as a complex problem in public administration. As a way of working in the public administration, co-creation is grounded in the literature of innovation, which dictates that co-creation should contribute, at least to some degree, to new, innovative and possibly more efficient solutions than the starting point (Bason, 2010;S. Osborne & Brown, 2011). In the document analysis of plans and strategies, it has been expressed several times that co-creation in municipalities is expected by national policies. It is repeatedly referred to in the documents that co-creation is expected to be carried out in the public sector and that "it is something that is in the present". Also, the documents indicate that cocreation is needed in the public sector to succeed in delivering improved services. In the documents, it is frequently phrased regarding co-creation that "working with many actors on solutions provides improved municipal services".

Instruments, tools, practice
When we examine their motivation for co-creation through the documents, in several places, the wording is phrased that the actors are facing challenging development tasks and complex social challenges. By working with the private and voluntary sectors, they can be better equipped to make accurate choices and deal with complex social problems: "Other actors should also take responsibility for community development". The complex social challenges they refer to in the documents seem to appear from a situation in which societies need to become more sustainable. Additionally, the increased health challenges of the population, democracy challenges and the expanded technological developments in the public sector. These responses may illustrate that they are facing challenges that are hard to deal with on their own, where co-creation as a strategy is expected by national authorities and, therefore, is an obvious choice. We question whether these acknowledgements illustrate that co-creation is not necessarily employed as a strategy to expand networks or collaborations to provide more integrated services; rather, it is employed because it is expected by national authorities.

Processes referred to as co-creation regarding municipal refugee integration efforts
In the following section, we give insights into the processes that the informants refer to as cocreation regarding municipal refugee integration efforts. In the analysis, we investigate whether these processes are co-creation or if it is simply a case of collaboration across municipal sectors, which, in the literature, is referred to as co-production. Both co-creation and co-production entail similar practices, such as collaborative governance and the participation of multiple actors (W. Voorberg et al., 2015). Co-production implies a process where public service organisations are dominant and where the actors collaborate across sectors and levels to deliver more holistic and integrated services (Røiseland & Lo, 2019). Co-creation, on the other hand, operates to achieve innovation or new services, where actors try to challenge established practices, systems or policy silos to create new solutions and improved practice. This illustrates that co-creation as a strategy is more than simply increasing a collaboration profile or expanding relations and networks.

The challenges they face regarding implementing integration policies stress a 'new concept'
Identifying the kinds of challenges faced by the case study municipalities in their efforts to implement integration policies can be relevant for understanding the extent to which collaboration in the forms of co-creation has been a strategy and if it has helped them expand networks and create a broader collaboration profile. The interview guide did not include any questions specifically on co-creation. This was an approach that the informants were enthusiastic about because they had started to implement co-creation as an administrative paradigm in their planning and governance systems.
Several informants stated that refugee integration was only a priority at the refugee office and was not emphasised in other parts of the municipal organisation. They reported a need for someone who could coordinate integration efforts and set the topic on the agenda throughout the whole municipal organisation, particularly in the large service-producing departments, such as health care, culture, adolescence and development. According to Sorrentino et al. (2018), cocreation involves changes in the institutional behaviour of relevant actors and that the incorporation of new practice requires a strong institutional capacity and organisational will to change and act. In general, many of the informants stressed that they saw several disciplines that "drifted out" in the organisation without anyone taking responsibility or prioritising them. Integration was one of those disciplines. The municipal executive expressed the following: We made a move a few years ago when we established a department [development department] that gathered several functions: environmental protection, climate, transport, public health, international work and integration. In establishing the new department, we were addressing the need to coordinate and disperse integration and diversity efforts into all the departments in the municipality.
These acknowledgements suggest that the municipality has made an effort to ensure that integration efforts are shared across several departments, indicating a need to expand collaboration partners, hence emphasising the integration topic in services other than at the refugee office. Furthermore, one informant from the planning department reported the following: Having multiple plans and strategies, "an action plan for everything", are problematic, because each department has its own plans that are not in tune with other sector plans. The co-creation mindset was a way for us to create a shared understanding and solutions throughout the municipality.
These statements express that the "new move" is also a topic in plans and strategies where they believe it is problematic that plans are not compatible across sectors and that co-creation as a mindset can help them share understandings and solutions in several fields of action. However, these solutions seem to be implemented from a top level, failing to elaborate on whether the large service-producing departments actually want to redefine their roles and relationships according to this new concept. Bason (2010) and S. Osborne and Brown (2011) stress that, in processes of cocreation, the creation of long-lasting outcomes aims to address societal needs by fundamentally changing the relationships, positions and rules between the involved stakeholders. This implies that the other departments somehow need to redefine their roles and relationships on this "new" concept or "new move" for implementing the strategy across sectors.

Integration coordinator to promote and strengthen the integration field across sectors
According to an informant from the planning department, each subject area is assigned a coordinator who works on the subject upon the large service-producing departments. This indicates that the coordinators might have a role in redefining the relationship with the other departments. These acknowledgements from the planner are also actualised by the leader at the refugee office, who expressed the following: The aim [with employing an integration coordinator] was to highlight, strengthen and prioritise integration efforts throughout the municipality organisation. The integration coordinator operates closely with the refugee office and is a central partner in our practice.
His responses express that the coordinator does not necessarily participate in the day-to-day practices. Nevertheless, this coordinator is seen as a spokesperson for refugee integration, discussing issues related to integration throughout the municipality organisation. According to the integration coordinator, he/she have a role in embedding the integration topic into sector plans, planning processes and more general development efforts. These experiences might illustrate that the coordinator is an agenda setter for immigrant integration. However, in a Norwegian municipal context, it is not common place to have an integration coordinator, which makes these actions with positioning a coordinator kind of innovative in a Norwegian context. Also, it is interesting how they have found resources and political acceptance for such a position.
The experience in the present study suggests that integration is a subject area that does not easily fit into existing practice because it is not integrated into the other departments' agendas. The integration coordinator was presented as an actor who carried out the initiative to promote and strengthen the integration field across sectors. The municipal executive reported that the idea of employing an integration coordinator was a suggestion from the municipal executive leader group. In contrast, the coordinator reported that the idea came from a discussion at an integration conference, where it was suggested that municipalities needed a coordinator for the field of integration.
The actors from the refugee office and actors from National Welfare Administration (NAV) play crucial roles in the municipality's daily integration efforts. While acknowledging that these actors are relevant for daily practice, the integration coordinator expressed the following: No one besides those working at the refugee office and NAV has expertise in integration and issues faced by the immigrant population. No one else in the municipality administration has insights into the user group's needs.
The informant touched upon an issue stressed in previous research that it is not a tradition in the municipality administration to prioritise the integration field. Also, they stress that the serviceproducing departments does not have insights into critical issues faced by immigrants. One of the coordinator's tasks is to raise the issues faced by immigrant organisations and NGOs and communicate their input to the administrative sections of the various municipal departments. The informant embraced this idea, stating that it gives the service-producing departments insights into the critical issues faced by immigrants. Besides, they stressed that the coordinator interacts with the immigrant population through NGOs, which promote relevant information from the departments to the immigrant population: "This gives us a better understanding of each other". These aspects show that employing an integration coordinator made the municipality able to connect the various service-producing departments with immigrant organisations and NGOs. These acknowledgements reflect that the municipal actors want to mobilise the experiences, resources and ideas of NGOs, immigrant organisations and a plurality of public actors. These aspects are expressed as crucial in strategies of co-creation (OECD, 2011;Torfing et al., 2017). These responses suggest that employing an integration coordinator is a measure for strengthening collaborative governance, which involves NGOs and multiple actors across municipal sectors. However, it is rather unclear whether the NGOs are invited as active and authoritative collaboration partners together with the public authorities or if the public administration only wants input on those solutions and services that already are developed or implemented, which is more comparable to co-production as a strategy.

The co-creation mindset
The interviews with the informants from the municipality's planning department revealed that the idea to coordinate and disperse integration and diversity efforts across all departments in the municipality came from a shift to a more holistic approach to the municipality's planning system. The informants identified this kind of collaboration as co-creation. One informant expressed the following: Co-creation "is in the present", and this form of collaboration has made it more natural for the diverse subjects in the municipality to operate together on social development. Working together means that we have a shared attitude and shared opinions on how things should be.
These acknowledgements illustrate what we found in the document study, besides that they consider co-creation as a strategy to operate together. An informant from the planning department expressed the following: Working together on development is crucial for us to think more similarly across the organisation. The processes we have started around planning practice are essential in terms of us being on the same page. During these processes, we talked a lot about co-creation. Cocreation is in the present, and co-creation gives us shared ownership of the process, the plans and the work we do, which gives us a shared mindset.
While acknowledging that co-creation is a way of working that allows them to find solutions and solve issues together, these statements also stress that employing a coordinator and disperse integration efforts across departments is not only a strategy to increase collaborations or expand network relations; rather, it is part of a new administrative paradigm. We question whether these results are related to efforts to provide more integrated services for refugees at the local level or if these efforts are part of the administrative strategy more by coincidence. In the document study, it was frequently mentioned that co-creation is expected under national policies and is a practice that the municipality believes is necessary to succeed in delivering efficient services. The documents also contained frequent mentions of improvements to municipal services because of collaboration with multiple actors.

Discussion
Several scholars have reported findings on collaboration challenges, arguing for the need to identify strategies to cope with these challenges regarding refugee integration (Bredal & Orupabo, 2014;Eimhjellen & Segaard, 2016;OECD, 2018). The present study has found that collaboration in what has been identified as co-creation is employed as a strategy for handling collaboration challenges and strengthening relations in the field of integration in the municipal sector. Our results suggest that the municipalities in the current study employ collaboration in the form of co-creation as a strategy for mobilising experiences, resources and ideas from a plurality of actors to highlight, strengthen and prioritise the integration efforts throughout the municipality organisation. However, their motivation for these actions seems to not exclusively be to increase a collaboration profile regarding integration issues, but rather to respond to some of the challenges the municipality has regarding complex social challenges. In addition, the co-creation strategy seems to stem from the fact that national guidelines have co-creation on their agendas and that co-creation was part of a more holistic concept or way of working in the entire organisation.
According to Hooper et al. (2017), to improve services for newly arrived refugees, municipalities must coordinate with a range of actors. Siede and Münch (2022) find that co-production can improve the division of roles and responsibility between volunteers and public actors. Espegren et al. (2019) emphasise that comprehensive collaboration in the form of cocreation is more likely to result in more coherent and efficient introduction programmes. In our case, the municipalities experienced challenges regarding collaboration across municipal sectors. On the one hand, those involved in integration had little capacity to act in the municipal organisation, and integration was not a priority, except at the refugee office. They expressed a need to expand networks and collaboration partners to improve the implementation of measures.
One of the responses was to establish an integration coordinator position to highlight, strengthen and prioritise integration efforts throughout the municipality organisation. His/her responsibility was to be an agenda setter for integration issues and coordinate information, responses and suggestions among NGOs, immigrant organisations and the municipal administration. He/she also highlights the topic of integration in sector planning and in more general planning and development efforts. We argue that these aspects might expand network relations and increase collaborations because they involve more actors across municipal levels and that the processes aim to build relations across municipal levels and with other relevant actors. In the literature, these aspects are related to co-creation as a strategy (OECD, 2011;Torfing et al., 2017). Røiseland and Lo (2019) argue that co-creation challenges structures, regulations and public contexts to achieve improved practice. According to Sorrentino et al. (2018), such changing institutional behaviour hinges on a strong institutional capacity and an organisational willingness to change and act. Although the informants have identified the form of collaboration they refer to as co-creation, we argue that the strategy is more identical to what the literature describes as co-production often referred to as interdisciplinary work (Agger & Lund, 2017;Lund, 2018). Previous studies have offered similar arguments regarding interdisciplinarity, which can be seen as a part of these strategies in public settings (Lund, 2018). As a strategy, co-production is employed to expand relations and increase collaboration within an existing public service delivery framework, which does not necessarily foster new innovations or challenge regulations. However, it is quite innovative in a Norwegian context to have an integration coordinator for refugees because it is not a common position in municipalities. That being said, even though, in theory, it is considered important to separate the co-creation and coproduction strategies from each other, we question whether it is as relevant in practice if these comprehensive models of collaboration strategies somehow can help them expand relations to implement measures. W. Voorberg et al. (2015) conclude that, empirically, co-production and cocreation are used as interchangeable concepts, which our case is also an illustration of.

Conclusion
The present article provides insights into what is referred to as co-creation and how it is employed as a strategy to provide more integrated services in refugee integration at the local level. The municipalities considered for the present study faced dilemmas regarding collaboration across levels and sectors and challenges with established partnership constellations. The findings suggest that co-creation as a strategy has expanded networks and created a broader collaboration profile for implementing integration policies.
Although the findings are context specific, a broader analytical generalisation can be elicited from the case because certain key elements can be identified to make the experiences of these municipalities a starting point for others: (1) An acknowledgement of the complexity the field of action has in the organisation and a spokesperson for integration issues who coordinate information, responses and suggestions between public, NGOs and private actors.
(2) An increased collaboration profile through interdisciplinary efforts involving a range of actors to find solutions and improve services.
(3) In this case, the planning and governance system was applied as an instrument that public leaders and officials used to include diverse municipal sectors in facilitating co-production and co-creation processes.
The results suggest that these key elements of co-creation as a strategy for improving services for refugees can be a starting point for other municipalities experiencing problems regarding intersectoral collaboration, multisectoral actions or a lack engagement from municipal employees regarding refugee integration. However, from a case study design, we cannot indicate the effects of collaborations or that co-creation as a strategy will result in more coherent or efficient introduction programmes, measures and so forth. In addition, it is difficult to isolate the effect of municipal strategies without comparisons with other municipalities or with other strategies. The experiences from the current study and the key elements outlined here can be relevant for other municipalities because the experiences can provide insights and perspectives for opportunities for change or as a starting point for other municipalities that have a need to expand networks or create a broader collaboration profile for implementing integration policies. Here, co-creation is considered a strategy for expanding relations and collaborations for more integrated services for refugees, and it is not implied that the strategy can be exclusively employed to implement local policies and measures.

Limitations
The present study has three main limitations. First, it draws upon a case study, so the results cannot be generalised to other cases. In particular, conclusions cannot be drawn on the general ways to succeed in implementing integration policy. Second, we have not interviewed informants from the private and volunteer sectors, which could have given valuable perspectives and reflections concerning the informants' experiences. Finally, using interviews as a major source of data has obvious limitations.