2.1 Literature Review
The academic literature was examined to determine a wide range of possible incentives. This literature review included the identification of:
- A definition of ‘collaboration’ and the reasons to collaborate (or not) in order to ‘ground’ the study on collaboration rather than other co-working concepts.
- The characteristics of successful collaboration in order to identify characteristics that could be incentivised.
- The barriers to collaboration in order to identify characteristics that could be mitigated through incentivisation.
- The identification of incentives for collaboration by using existing incentives and suggest potential new incentives based on characteristics of successful collaboration and barriers to collaboration.
2.2 Collaboration Defined
Establishing a basic definition of collaboration was not as simple a task as might be expected as there is much confusion about what collaborative efforts can and should encompass (Drumwright, Cunningham, & Berger, 2004). Definitions vary from Roberts and O’Connor’s simple “collaboration refers to individuals or organisations working together to achieve a common purpose” (2008b, p. 4) to Thomson and Perry’s more expansive definition of “a process in which actors interact through formal and informal negotiation, jointly creating rules and structures governing their relationships and ways to act or decide on the issues that brought them together; it is a process of shared norms and mutually beneficial interactions” (2006, p. 23).
For the purposes of this study, Linden’s definition was adopted - “collaboration occurs when people from different organisations (or units within one organisation) produce something together through their joint effort, resources and decision making, and share ownership of the final product or service” (2002, p. 4).
Many academics have contended that collaboration is one part of a continuum of partnership engagements, usually representing partnerships with high levels of trust, intensity and integration. Using funder partnerships as their context, Winer and Ray postulated a three phase continuum of increasing intensity with ‘cooperation’ at the lower end, ‘coordination’ in the middle and ‘collaboration’ associated with highest level of relational intensity (1994). Looking at not-for-profit partnerships, Roberts and O’Connor also used an increasing relational intensity continuum progressing from ‘communication’ to ‘cooperation’ on to ‘collaboration’ and finally to ‘integration’ (2008b). In their assessment of corporate and not-for-profit partnerships, Austin, Hesselbein et al, suggested the existence of a three stage continuum from philanthropic partnerships at one extreme (dominated by a ‘charity syndrome’ and little strategic alignment) through ‘transactional’ relationships in the middle stage and ‘integrative’ partnerships representing a situation “where ‘we’ replaces ‘us and them’” (2000, p. 36).
The multiplier effect of a variety of participating collaborators operating with varying intensities in different types of collaboration for different goals using a variety of structural forms guarantees that collaborative forms are myriad in their diversity. In examining these differences, Thomson and Perry used five categories to classify different dimensions of collaboration: the governance dimension, the administration dimension, the autonomy dimension, the mutuality dimension and the trust and reciprocity dimension (2006). In his work on inter-firm collaborations, Nooteboom emphasised ten differentiating factors in the collaborative structures: network size, density/sparseness, connectedness, degree of centrality, betweenness centrality, structural holes, isolation, stability, structural equivalence and the concentration of ownership and control (2004).
2.3 Why to Collaborate...and Why Not?
Regardless of the detail and diversity of individual collaborative structures, Thomson and Perry’s definition of collaboration indicates just how difficult it is to get any of them to work consistently: “collaboration is like cottage cheese. It occasionally smells bad and it separates easily” (1998, p. 409).
This said, the demand for collaborative responses to social problems has constantly increased as government’s role in solving society’s problems is “shrinking and changing” (Drumwright, et al., 2004, p. 49). It was hard to find a contemporary policy document in the welfare area that did not include collaboration as a key strategy and the pressure to collaborate is said to be “overwhelming” (Dowling, 2004, p. 309).
Hill and Lynn believed that two key classes of theories explained the drive towards collaboration - rational choice theories and socialised choice theories (2003). Rational choice theories emphasise the importance of ‘economic’ or ‘efficiency’ reasons, whilst socialised choice theories suggest multiple motive, societal benefit ‘effectiveness’ reasons as the main drivers for collaboration. These differing perspectives have the potential to cause problems and Robert and O’Connor felt there was evidence that funders and providers might be at cross purposes on occasion with funders looking for efficiency and providers collaborating for effectiveness (2008a). Whilst there are clearly pragmatic reasons for collaborating (including the quest for resources and power), the ideological basis for collaboration formation usually includes specific value-based commitment to a cause or perhaps a ‘public good’ (Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 2001). This is driven by a broad realisation that complex multi-dimensional problems cannot be solved by single ‘siloed’ organisations (Bryson, Crosby, & Stone, 2006). Complex feedback effects abound in these challenging situations (Senge, 1994) and interconnected and encompassing responses are required (Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 2001). As Linden stated “the public’s most important expectation today is to solve complex, crosscutting problems that can only be addressed by collaborating across organisational boundaries” (2002, p. 6).
The contribution of new ideas and perspectives through collaboration is an important benefit. Collaborations can create “new value” rather than non-gain exchanges between current players (Hansen & Nohria, 2004; Kanter, 1994). In the corporate and inter-firm arena, it is argued that “no company should innovate on its own” (Pisano & Verganti, 2008, p. 2) and effective integration has been seen as a central factor in the success of hi-tech partnerships (Gossain, 2002). Nooteboom added increased efficiency, improved competencies, refined positioning and improved competitive stance as other advantages that could accrue from effective collaboration in an inter-firm setting (2004).
Other reasons to collaborate include: the potential to be involved in new issues without having to have sole responsibility; the ability to demonstrate widespread attention on an issue; the creation of ‘critical mass’ behind an effort; the mobilisation of talent and resources enhancing the leverage of groups (Roberts-DeGennaro, 1986); recruitment of participants from diverse groups; and the flexible nature of collaborations means that changing situations can be exploited (Butterfoss, Goodman, & Wandersman, 1993).
However, despite the many benefits, the literature was by no means unequivocal in its support for collaborations. A regular criticism was that there was a tendency to focus on the positives without examining the costs (Dowling, 2004). There was actually very little evaluation of collaboration to confirm that they improve efficiency (J. Roberts & O’Connor, 2008b) probably due to the highly complex challenges of evidence gathering in multi-agency projects (El Ansari, Phillips, & Hammick, 2001). As well as cost issues, there was also the potential loss of autonomy, the expending of scarce resources, time commitments and shared leadership challenges (Butterfoss, et al., 1993; Hansen & Nohria, 2004).
The Charity Commission in the United Kingdom found that whilst only 5% of charities involved in collaborations felt that the arrangement did not benefit them, the main “flash points” for failure were: a breakdown in communications (29%); a lack of clarity in relationships (18%); and a lack of initiative in partner charities (18%) (2003).
Whilst on balance the literature concluded that collaboration is a good thing (Butterfoss, et al., 1993) there were a great number of pros and cons that need to be considered and collaboration was clearly not a ‘silver bullet’ (J. Roberts & O’Connor, 2008a).
2.4 Characteristics of Successful Collaboration
In order to identify characteristics that could be incentivised, a meta-analysis of papers on successful structures for collaboration was conducted and the detailed results of this review are shown in Appendix B – The Characteristics of Successful Collaboration.
In summary, the most important broad factors for successful collaborations were:
Purpose and Commitment – including the articulation and long term commitment to a clear mission for the coalition, and partners coming together voluntarily with alignment in strategy, vision and values alignment.
Leadership - Strong leadership in person and in process was deemed important, particularly co-leadership and shared leadership models.
Relationships - It was agreed that strong collaborations were founded on strong personal connections and a culture and capacity built upon mutual respect, understanding and trust.
Accountability - There was agreement on the need to establish and monitor a set of performance measures that held the collaboration parties mutually accountable.
Funding and Other Resources - Strong partnerships required adequate stable funding as well as sufficient staff focus and skills.
Formalisation – Agreeing formal plans, roles, policies and responsibility was seen as important.
2.5 Barriers to Collaboration
Collaborative work can be highly complex and usually requires more advanced skills and attitudes than single organisation operation challenges (Butterfoss, Goodman et al. 1993). As Majumdar noted “well-established practices do not change overnight and collaboration may be perceived as a new way of working” (2006). Management skills need to change if effective collaboration is to take place (Dodgson 1992) and a differing management protocols, structures and systems between collaborative partners can derail progress (Gray 2002). A key management role may well be the identification of the right time to bring an end to a collaborative partnership (Drumwright, Cunningham et al. 2004).
Many authors highlighted substantial power differentials within collaborations as a major barrier to success (Gray 1989; Mintzberg, Jorgensen et al. 1996; Drumwright, Cunningham et al. 2004). Where one partner has more power, the dependant partner may use a variety of tactics to protect its assets and balance its dependence (Heide and John 1988). Power inequity problems can relate to individuals as well as organisations. Kanter argued that many collaborations are jeopardised because managers “worry more about controlling the relationship than about nurturing it” (1994, p. 96), and Mintzberg et al suggested that often the “real barriers to horizontal collaboration may be vertical” (1996, p. 64) as the skills that have enabled people to succeed in climbing a hierarchy may impede them from encouraging horizontal collaboration.
Negative attitudes to the collaborative effort can certainly impede success (Gray 1989). McLaughlin and Covert identified competitive spirit, parochial interest, personal resistance to change and negative staff attitudes as barriers to collaboration (Majumdar 2006), whilst Hansen and Nohria added unwillingness to learn from others, inability to seek and find expertise and unwillingness to help or share what they know (2004). Coulson-Thomas claimed that “loser companies” in the collaboration game are cautious and passionately protective of their independence (2005) - they see collaboration as a constraint on freedom of action rather than an opportunity to develop something more effective.
Another barrier to effective collaboration can be the ‘free rider’ issue where groups use shared resources for individual benefit without contributing equal or greater benefits in return (Applegate 2006). Roberts suggested that this could be minimised by the application of an asset-based development approach where collaborative organisations were selected on the basis of the assets and strengths that they could contribute to the partnership (2004).
Although lack of funding for collaboration is an obvious barrier to activity, if funders lack expertise in complex partnership building, their attempts to drive change can jeopardise the very progress they seek. Disparate goals of funders and deliverers (often around ‘efficiency’ versus ‘effectiveness’ perspectives highlighted earlier (Roberts and O’Connor 2008b)) might be as damaging to working together as more structural funding issues such as lack of standard funding applications, inflexible funding and siloed funding (Browne, Roberts et al. 2004). However, on the more positive side, an informed funder can provide effective external support and create a culture of formalisation, standardisation, intensity and reciprocity, which are all factors that are highly correlated with satisfaction within collaborations (Butterfoss, Goodman et al. 1993).