UNCG Collaborative Capacity Work Group
UNCG Collaborative Capacity Work Group
WORKING DRAFT
BUILDING COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY
A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
Collaborative Capacity Guidance Document Draft Mar 8.docs
March 31, 2012
CCWG Wikispace: http://uncgcollaborativecapacity.wikispaces.com/
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Why Guidance on Building Collaborative Capacity Is Needed
B. Guidance Document Structure and Format
C. Guidance Document Format
Definitions (box)
II. The Conceptual Framework for Collaborative Capacity
References and Literature Review
III. Collaborative Capacity Initiatives and Lessons Learned
IV. Collaborative Capacity Literature Review
Appendices
· Appendix A- KSAs for Collaborative Capacity
I. Introduction
“Collaboration is becoming the 21st century’s governance tool of choice and necessity.”
-UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies
A. Why Guidance on Building Collaborative Capacity Is Needed
Governance in the United States is in transition and is increasingly accomplished through a complex set of networks, partnerships, and collaborations in the shadow of formal organizational hierarchies which continue to play central roles in government organizations.
The complex societal issues facing government require new types of collaborative relationships to be forged. Increased fiscal constraints is pushing managers to develop new ways of doing business with citizens, the private sector, and other government organizations
The past decade has seen considerable growth in the number of collaborations among government agencies at the federal and state levels and with private sector and nongovernmental partners to achieve mission results. In government and industry, collaboration is on the rise because it has been found to reduce litigation, decrease costs, and increase innovation (Mankin, Cohen & Fitzgerald, 2004).
Today we have a better picture of the individual competencies needed for high performance and successful collaboration.[1] What are the characteristics of organizations whose members effectively and successfully collaborate? How do they make collaboration a leadership competency and support its use by managers and staff in pursuing mission?
Building collaborative capacity has been mostly a by-product and not a focus of this activity.[2] We are only beginning to develop and validate ways to assess individual and institutional collaborative capacity and provide guidance to agencies in terms of aligning their strategies, incentives, rewards, policies and procedures to support this.
The audiences for this guidance include those leaders making high level funding and policy decisions for agencies and organizations, senior management working on embedding collaborative capacity within the organization and agency and staff on the front line engaged in representing the agencies in collaboration.
B. Guidance Document Structure & Format
A guide focusing on collaborative capacity will offer managers and leaders and framework and guidance on:
· How to address and facilitate political leadership/authority and empowerment for staff to use collaboration where appropriate,
· Understanding the investments of time and resources needed to support collaboration
· The development of institutional procedures that reward use of collaborative strategies and
· Review and changes regarding organizational culture and collaboration.
January 20, 2012 WG Comments on Format and Scope
The group reviewed again the possible boundaries for the effort and agreed that the Workgroup should seek to approach this effort focusing on practical guidance to public/private/NGO organizations and managers on developing collaborative capacity within their organizations. This should be viewed with an understanding that these become important for organizations due to drivers (partners, stakeholders) that are external to the organization. The Working Group agreed to keep an open mind as to both the internal and external conditions and opportunities and drivers to develop collaborative capacity within an organization or agency.
The Work Group agreed that the Guidance document should have a range of possible strategies, approaches and examples for addressing each of the collaborative capacity components. “The guide we are cooking up should include a range of strategies that an agency might choose to use in developing collaborative capacity in a more systematic way, i.e. one size doesn’t fit all.” They also suggested that there should be tools and guidance on both how to conduct collaborative capacity assessments and how to establish and implement evaluation and measurement of the efforts.
We should seek to consider different organizational circumstances and contexts. In the November meeting the group suggested strategies might be framed in terms of challenges, impediments and opportunities for each of the components of the conceptual framework. The development of a literature review on developing collaborative capacity plus those drawn from professional experience and examples should inform these tested strategies. The NEPA Collaboration Handbook (posted on the wiki site) http://www.ecr.gov/pdf/Collaboration_in_NEPA_Oct_2007.pdf, might offer an approach to framing guidance on strategies. On the November conference call, the participants also discussed the importance of including examples of challenges and strategies throughout the guide (as part of the body or as sidebars).
In terms of a format for guidance, Shari Shaftlein FHA/USDOT suggested we look at the online organization of Transportation for Communities - Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) http://www.transportationforcommunities.com/ TCAPP is a decision support tool, built from the experiences of transportation partners and stakeholders, which provides how-to information when it is most needed to improve how transportation planners and decision makers develop, prioritize, and inform transportation plans and projects. “This represents the Transportation sector's effort to mainstream collaboration in all Planning and Project Development Decisions and incorporate several years and millions of dollars of research products produced via SHRPII http://www.trb.org/StrategicHighwayResearchProgram2SHRP2/Blank2.aspx with a focus on capacity (in Transportation terms - new roads).”
Bill Logue Guidance Format Thoughts (from google doc comments):
If the group has discussed this before my joining please excuse but wanted to pose a basic issue that impacts format. It seems that there are several possible audiences and purposes for a guidance document that have implications for format and how it is accessed and used. These include:
1. People involved at high level policy and funding decisions about making the initial determination to move to build collaborative capacity in an organization, e.g., agency and executive leadership, legislators. (The use and implementation then needs to be tracked to make the case for continuing support through leadership transitions and political shifts because programs and efforts will need to justify themselves on an ongoing basis – any lessons from university centers on this could be helpful.)
2. Senior staff making broader decisions on embedding collaborative capacity practices pursuant to a policy decision.
3. Staff who are working on design and implementation of collaborative capacity and competency. These are also the folks who will be providing information to the above.
For the first group the broad brush static (Print, PDF) approach would seem most useful.
For the second and third groups (on the ground or line staff for lack of a better term), they are more likely to need information in the moment which is more dynamic in how it is delivered, accessed and updated so that they can:
a) design/implement or
b) provide just in time input to senior leadership to build knowledge and awareness.
The issue of turnover requiring ongoing education and advocacy for collaborative capacity may play into format – at the senior level about why it is important and at the supporting levels on the what and how of collaborative capacity.
C. The History of this University Network for Collaborative Governance Initiative
Building on a session at the June, 2011 UNCG meeting in Portland, OR, a small group of UNCG members agreed to explore whether and then how to usefully expand upon the UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies report to provide collaborative capacity guidance for those working within organizations in collaborative governance settings. In the Fall of 2011 a work group was formed with members from the Network, from agencies with collaborative capacity experience and other experts.
It was agreed that institutional collaborative capacity should be explored in the context of the evolving understanding of collaborative governance,[1] the UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies,[2] and recent efforts in implementing collaborative capacity assessments and initiatives[3]
Definitions
Collaborative Capacity is the ability of organizations to effectively enter into, develop, and sustain intra and inter-organizational systems in pursuit of collective and shared outcomes and goals. It focuses on the organization’s network for support of collaborative efforts both within and beyond the organization. In order to effectively engage and participate in collaborative governance initiatives, public agencies and private organizations need to assess their organizational collaborative capacity as well as the capacity of their staff.
Collaborative Competency focuses on the individual’s capacity for and mastery of effective collaboration. The UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies focuses on guiding public managers interested in improving their staff’s collaborative competence through continuing education and training.
Collaborative Governance is a concept that addresses the process of establishing, steering, facilitating, operating, and monitoring cross-sector organizational arrangements to address public policy problems that cannot be easily addressed by a single organization or the public sector alone. This mode of governance focuses on public issues and brings multiple stakeholders from different sectors together in common forum to engage in consensus-oriented solution seeking, problem solving and decision-making in order to leverage and build on the unique attributes and resources of each.
Governance is the process by which public ends and means are identified, agreed upon, and pursued. It encompasses both formal and informal systems of relationships and networks for decision-making and problem solving.
Government relates to the specific jurisdiction in which authority is exercised.
II. THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY
In 2008, as part of a project focusing on helping the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) assess its capacity to use collaborative strategies in carrying out its mission in the water resources planning and management arena, DuPraw undertook a literature review to identify the components of collaborative capacity from an organizational and “systems” point of view. DuPraw and the USACE team defined “collaborative capacity” as “the ability of organizations to enter into, develop, and sustain interorganizational systems in pursuit of collective outcomes”; fostering collaborative capacity requires “systematic attention, resources, commitment, and opportunities for interaction” (Hocevar, Thomas and Jansen, 2006). An organization that has a robust collaborative capacity is able to “learn, experiment, and adapt creatively to threats and opportunities” (Innes and Booher, 2003).
The team defined “system” as a “set of interrelated components, acting with a common purpose, that exchanges information and energy with its environment”; further: (1) systems are comprised of subsystems; (2) system activities can transform the system into another state; (3) systems have self-regulatory and adaptive mechanisms; and (4) systems must function within a particular context (Diamond and McDonald 1996). In large, non-linear systems, changes to one subsystem can radically alter the way in which the whole system functions (Anderson 1999). Each component of a system (such as a branch of a federal agency) may have its own unique role and culture, but each depends on the effective functioning of the other system components for the overall success of the organization (Costantino and Merchant 1996).
DuPraw’s findings, published in the 2011 in the USACE report, The State of Collaboration in the Corps: A Field Perspective,” suggested that there are five inter-dependent components to such a system: (1) Political Leadership, Authority, and Empowerment; (2) Individual Knowledge, Skills and Abilities; (3) Time and Resources; (4) Institutional Procedures; and (5) Organizational Culture. Each of these is briefly summarized below; a more detailed discussion can be found in the 2011 USACE report mentioned above.
Leadership commitment -- The authority to encourage collaboration, re-program budgets to support it, and to implement resulting decisions, including monitoring and evaluation (Jones 2005). Political support is needed for cross-project and inter-agency activities, including training and discussion forums (Interagency Initiative to Foster Collaborative Problem Solving and Environmental Conflict Resolution, Briefing Report for Federal Department Leadership 2004 (revised 2005)). Leaders need to advocate for collaboration, explain its benefits, and encourage ongoing learning about how to do it well (Foster-Fishman et al.). Those initiating collaboration projects must, among other things, have interpersonal networks they can tap into at all levels of their organizations. The concept of leadership in the context of a collaborative process usually refers to the convening entity; however, the need for leadership “flows down” to the negotiators as well. All participants need the authority and accountability to negotiate and make decisions on behalf of their respective organizations (Hocevar, Thomas, and Jansen (2006).
Knowledge, skills, and abilities – The USACE team used the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) shown in Appendix 1. It is a compilation of KSAs used by the Departments of Defense, Interior and Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as several additional KSAs derived from DuPraw’s literature review.
Time and Resources – In the environmental / public policy realm, collaborative projects are frequently multi-year initiatives, entailing many meetings and much in-house; related time-consuming activities can include budgeting, research, implementation, monitoring and evaluation (Koontz et al. 2004). Having a source of dedicated resources contributes to success (Hocevar, Thomas, and Jansen, 2006), but is not always possible. Collaborating across boundaries and with stakeholders does take time and resources upfront, but collaboration can also leverage shared resources from multiple quarters. Also, as initial efforts bear fruit, additional sources of funds, expertise, information, and staff time are often more forthcoming. Those seeking to initiate a collaborative process should carefully calibrate the time and resources requirements needed at the outset, as well as what may be needed in the future. Resources are not limited to funding, but include human and technical resources (Koontz et al., 2004).
Institutional Procedures – official ways of carrying out the organization’s operations, including developing leadership commitment, establishing policies, rules, norms and practices; and obtaining resources and cooperation (Imperial 2005). Most organizations also have institutional procedures pertaining to communication with various audiences and methods of fostering external awareness (e.g., interactions with politicians, public agencies at various levels of governance, and branch offices). Institutional procedures includes various kinds of incentives that agencies may offer personnel for appropriate and effective use of collaboration to advance the agency’s mission.