There is no shortage of advice on how to create successful collaborative partnerships (Dowling, 2004), and a number of authors have developed detailed checklists of key aspects (Mattessich, et al., 2001; Mizrahi & Rosenthal, 2001).
A meta-analysis of papers suggests that the most important factors are as follows:
Purpose and Commitment
There is rare near-unanimity amongst academic studies that the most important element in the formation of effective collaborations is the articulation of a clear mission or guiding purpose for the coalition (Butterfoss, et al., 1993). This ‘direction setting’ is seen as critical (Gray, 1985). Dowling cites a further 11 academic writers in emphasising the importance of the “purpose of and need for” successful collaborations (2004). Roberts and O’Connor reinforced the importance of partners coming together voluntarily around a shared commitment (2008b). While Nowland-Foreman emphasises clarity (2008), Linden stresses audacity and the importance of a “shared goal that cannot achieve alone”, a goal with “high stakes” (2002). Das and Teng see the importance of goal setting as one of establishing a control mechanism and a basis for accountability rather than an aspirational dream (1998).
When considering essential “alliance drivers”, Austin focuses primary attention on strategy, vision and values alignment and he argues “the more centrally aligned the partnership purpose is to each organisation’s strategy and mission, the more important and vigorous the relationship appears to be” (2000).
This clear and audacious purpose needs to be reinforced by sustained commitment to the purpose from the partners, what Mizrahi and Rosenthal call “the dichotomy between self-interest and altruism, or between pragmatism and ideology” (2001) and an ongoing willingness to invest in improving their partnering capabilities to keep the goal attainable and the collaboration healthy (MacCormack & Forbath, 2008).
Leadership
Strong leadership in person and in process are deemed important in the development of effective collaborations (Dowling, 2004; Majumdar, 2006). Linden argues for shared or collaborative leadership, driven by a champion for the initiative with the credibility and clout to keep effective collaboration a priority (2002). Not only does this mean that the right people with the right leadership skills are at the table but that there is an “open credible process”. Whilst Roberts and O’Connor believe that a bottom up approach within organisations and communities has the most potential to increase collaboration and improve outcomes, they also recognise the importance of executive sponsorship (2008b). Gossain too emphasises the need for support from the top for any successful collaboration (2002).
Relationships
Effective collaboration is highly unlikely without the right people and the right relationships (Nowland-Foreman, 2008). Stable collaborations are founded on strong personal connections and a culture and capacity built upon mutual respect, understanding and trust (Mattessich, et al., 2001). Austin echoes the importance of personal connections to robust collaboration and emphasises value balance as a key element of the inter-organisational relationship (2000). Others have categorised this relationship context as “promoting intimacy and sharing authority” (Senge, Kleiner, & Roberts, 1994) or nurturing trust (J. Roberts & O’Connor, 2008b). Further, Senge describes the importance of “seeing each other as colleagues” rather than separate organisational representatives if collaboration is going to work (1994).
But this connection through relationships does not happen without hard work and attention. In his consideration of corporate collaboration, Coulson-Thomas identified the constant active search for opportunities from common ground and shared interests to be a key characteristic of “winner companies” (2005).
Whilst Mattessich, Murray-Close et al feel that every level within each partner organisation needs to be represented in a successful collaboration (2001), Roberts and O’Connor found that, in the most successful collaborations, these relationships often start low down rather than in the upper echelons and that these bottom-up collaborations are often more robust as they are built on strong ‘grassroots’ collaborations at an operational level (2008b).
These relationships need to be supported by open and frequent, formal and informal communication links (Austin, 2000; Majumdar, 2006; Mattessich, et al., 2001).
Accountability
Whilst authors acknowledge the great difficulty in measuring collaboration performance (Butterfoss, et al., 1993; Dowling, 2004; J. Roberts & O’Connor, 2008b), the requirement to establish and monitor a set of performance measures that hold the collaboration parties mutually accountable is a strong theme in the academic literature (Austin, 2000; Austin, et al., 2000; Dowling, 2004; Majumdar, 2006; J. Roberts & O’Connor, 2008b).
Dowling suggests that measurement of success could be divided into two broad areas – process success and outcome success (2004), Coulson-Thomas proposes open book accounting (2005), and Applegate suggests three broad groups of performance measures related to task (what she terms “economic capital”), information/expertise (“knowledge capital”) and affiliation/identity (“social capital”) (2006).
Funding and Other Resources
Obtaining the financial resources is a key priority for collaborative groups, particularly as collaboration may well be expensive in the early stages whilst alignment is being sought and plans developed (Mattessich, et al., 2001). Strong partnerships require adequate stable funding (J. Roberts & O’Connor, 2008b), but they also require sufficient staff focus and skills if they are to be successful. They also require time and should not be rushed as “the goals are more easily attained when pursued with patience and persistence” (Mattessich, et al., 2001)
The allocation of adequate management infrastructure to the collaboration is another important resource (Dowling, 2004) that enables concerted decision making among stakeholders (Majumdar, 2006), effective control mechanisms (Das & Teng, 1998), a solid business and technical blueprint and a stakeholder management system (Gossain, 2002).
Formalisation
“The most common reason for collaboration meltdown is disagreements and uncertainty about the operating norm” (Lukas, 2005). The importance of formalising plans, roles, policies and responsibility is critical as complex multi-party collaborations always have a danger of dissolving into unstructured, unfocused and uncoordinated arrangements (Nowland-Foreman, 2008). Formal contracts can be a good way to enshrine partner commitments in a collaborative project (Courtney, 2006; J. M. Roberts, 2004).