Policy Consensus E-News — August 2006
If you are unable to properly view this email, please click here.
In this issue:
- Editorial: Is the Word “Collaboration” Losing It’s Meaning?
- Needed: Infrastructure for Transportation Collaboration
- Sacramento States Grants Certificate in Collaborative Governance
- New Report: ‘A Manager’s Guide to Choosing and Using Collaborative Networks’
- Guides Available from US Federal Interagency ADR Working Group
Is the Word “Collaboration” Losing Its Meaning?
Over the past year, we have heard more and more people use the word collaboration to describe a wide variety of activities. Wikipedia defines collaboration as a word used “abstractly” to apply to all processes wherein people work together. Is the abstraction surrounding the use of the term collaboration becoming a problem?
Maybe you saw the recent New Yorker cartoon in which a kindergartner approaches the teacher, points to another little boy, and says, “Billy won't collaborate." It’s funny in the cartoon, but not so funny when you here people invoke the word to describe an activity that is far from collaborative.
The term is often used indistinguishably from cooperation, coordination, and even communication. Yet, cooperation, coordination, communication and collaboration are not the same. How can we differentiate these terms in useful ways, especially for those of us working to establish multi-party, multi-sector collaboration as a necessary approach to managing complex public issues?
Arthur Himmelman was one of the first to distinguish these terms in useful ways. He describes the differences between networking, coordination, cooperation, and collaboration. As Himmelman says, “when organizations (or individuals) collaborate they have to "share risks, responsibilities, and rewards."
Just
like in the "Little Red Hen," if only one group "plants
the wheat, harvests it, takes it to the mill, and bakes it," then
that group will "eat the bread" alone. On the other hand, if
all along the way, everyone does the work, "everyone can eat the bread
together." All the individuals and organizations involved in a collaboration
can and should share the credit and recognition when they achieve their
shared objectives. As Russ Linden writes, “Collaboration is about
co-labor, about joint effort and ownership. The end result is not mine
or yours, it’s ours.”
Are there some standards that can be established to measure true collaboration? Barbara Gray’s definition of “collaboration” from her 1989 book, Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems, offers a good starting place:
- Joint ownership of decisions is involved
- Stakeholders assume collective responsibility” for achieving the jointly agreed to objectives.
Some other standards for measuring whether a group is a true collaboration could include:
- Jointly agreed to indicators of success or milestones for measuring progress
- Mechanisms exist to monitor whether participants are contributing to meeting the jointly agreed to objectives
- Jointly developed strategies and actions that spell out commitments, taking into account the differences among the participating groups and individuals
- Contractual agreements or other provisions that describe roles and responsibilities for carrying out jointly agreed to objectives
- Evidence of resource sharing or exchanges
- Mechanisms for regular exchange of information and feedback about joint progress toward objectives
We would be very interested in your ideas about standards or measures that would enable people to say, “This is a true collaboration because they…” Let us hear from you.
Assessment Points Out Need for An Infrastructure for Transportation Collaboration
Under
a contract from the Federal Highway Administration, the National Policy
Consensus Center (NPCC) completed on-site assessments in four states of
how collaborative practices are employed to address a range of transportation
and related issues. The states are Massachusetts, North Carolina, Utah
and Virginia.
The assessment team interviewed more than 60 people from governors’ offices, state and federal transportation and resource agencies, and other stakeholders to identify current mechanisms for coordination as well as the issues, barriers, and obstacles to better use of collaborative practices.
Across states, the key finding was the degree to which the existing challenge to better transportation - land use planning and implementation is the need for better coordination and collaboration. Without the institutional mechanisms and infrastructure to use these practices, investments in transportation facilities are often undermined by current land development decisions.
Sacramento State Launches Certificate in Collaborative Governance
This
month, the first students received the new Certificate in Collaborative
Governance from California State University, Sacramento. This is a milestone
for the Center for Collaborative Policy’s academic program. Their
Certificate program was conceived by Susan Sherry, the Center’s Executive
Director, and David Booher, the Center’s Senior Policy Advisor. David
is also an adjunct faculty member in the Department of Public Policy and
Administration at Sacramento State.
The Certificate program includes three courses developed with the Department of Public Policy and Administration with support from Hewlett Foundation grants. The courses include: Theory of Collaborative Policy Making, Practice of Collaborative Policy Making, and Advanced Practice of Collaborative Policy Making.
The new Certificate program has gotten quite a bit of attention across the country. Most recently, PA Times, the newspaper of the American Society for Public Administration, has an article about the program in the September edition.
The success of this effort has also resulted in two new collaboration courses being offered by Sacramento State, Collaborative Problem Solving Practicum, an undergraduate interdisciplinary upper division course designed for students with many different majors, and a graduate level advanced leadership seminar in the Department of Educational Leadership and Policy Studies . Over the next year, the Center will engage in a dialogue with the university about the next phase for the Center's support of academic and research programs.
For more information about the Certificate program and a look at the first recipients please visit the CCP website.
New
Report Identifies Different Types of Collaborative Networks
One of the most useful publications to cross our desk this month is a new report, A Manager’s Guide to Choosing and Using Collaborative Networks, from the IBM Center for the Business of Government. The report describes four different kinds networks and the tasks of managers and members of those networks.
Over the last twenty years, there has been a rise in networked forms of governance. These networks are serving as connections among people, programs, and organizations for the purpose of implementing public policy. Networks allow organizations to collaborate on services they provide in common, while keeping bureaucracy to a minimum.
According to the authors, networks emerge or are created for a specific purpose — usually to respond to a long standing problem, like homelessness, or an emergent problem, like terrorism. An example: Hurricane Katrina relief. Coast Guard Vice Admiral Thad Allen worked with local government agencies, including police and fire departments; for-profit service providers, including businesses, contractors, insurance companies, etc.; and non-profits such as Red Cross, hospitals, and other disaster agencies. All of these entities reported to different people in different types of organizations, yet they collaborated to form a response network.
US Federal Interagency ADR Working Group Offers Three Guides
The Interagency ADR Working Group, which assists federal agencies in the use of ADR, has finalized three guides relating to mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution:
- Protecting the Confidentiality of Dispute Resolution Proceedings provides practical guidance on the application of the confidentiality provisions of the Administrative Dispute Resolution Act of 1996 to federal workplace dispute resolution programs.
- A Guide for Federal Employee Mediators provides practical ethical guidance and builds on the September 2005 Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators.
- A Guide for Federal Employee Ombuds builds on the Standards for the Establishment and Operation of Ombuds Offices issued by the ABA in February 2004.
These guides are designed for use by federal employee mediators within the government, but may be models for states to use.
Share PolicyConsenus E-News with your leaders and colleagues by forwarding this edition to them. Or, direct them to www.policyconsensus.org, where they can sign up to receive it in their own e-mail inbox!