Skip to main content

The collaborative push: moving beyond rhetoric and gaining evidence

Abstract

Collaboration has been enacted as a core strategy by both the government and nongovernment sectors to address many of the intractable issues confronting contemporary society. The cult of collaboration has become so pervasive that it is now an elastic term referring generally to any form of ‘working together’. The lack of specificity about collaboration and its practice means that it risks being reduced to mere rhetoric without sustained practice or action. Drawing on an extensive data set (qualitative, quantitative) of broadly collaborative endeavours gathered over 10 years in Queensland, Australia, this paper aims to fill out the black box of collaboration. Specifically it examines the drivers for collaboration, dominant structures and mechanisms adopted, what has worked and unintended consequences. In particular it investigates the skills and competencies required in an embedded collaborative endeavour within and across organisations. Social network analysis is applied to isolate the structural properties of collaborations over other forms of integration as well as highlighting key roles and tasks. Collaboration is found to be a distinctive form of working together, characterised by intense and interdependent relationships and exchanges, higher levels of cohesion (density) and requiring new ways of behaving, working, managing and leading. These elements are configured into a practice framework. Developing an empirical evidence base for collaboration structure, practice and strategy provides a useful foundation for theory extension. The paper concludes that for collaboration, to be successfully employed as a management strategy it must move beyond rhetoric and develop a coherent model for action.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. SIP: 0.3015; GCHN: 0.1968; CSZPC: 0.2120, where 1 = fully integrated system; remainder varied from 0.17; average path distance measure of between 1. 78 and 2.6 was also indicative the level of disconnection between agencies.

References

  • 6, P. (2004). Joined-up government in the Western World in comparative perspective: a preliminary literature review and exploration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 14(1), 103–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • ACTOSS. (2009). The path less travelled: Transport and social inclusion in Canberra. ACTOSS. http://www.actoss.org.au/publications/publications2009/2409REP.pdf.

  • Alter, C., & Hage, J. (1993). Organizations working together. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Anklam, P. (2007). A practical guide to creating and sustaining networks at work and in the World. Burlington, MA, USA: Butterworth-Heinemann, Elsevier.

  • Australian Public Service Commission. (2009). Delivering performance and accountability. Australian Government, AGPS: Canberra. http://www.apsc.gov.au/publications09/performanceandaccountability.pdf.

  • Bracken, S. (2007). The importance of language, context and communication as components of successful partnerships. New Directions for Community Colleges, 139(Fall), 41–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K., & Keast, R. (2003). Community-government engagement: Community connections through networked arrangements. Asian Journal of Public Administration, 25(1), 107–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, K., & Keast, R. (2005). Social services policy and delivery in Australia: Centre-periphery mixes. Policy & Politics, 33(3), 505–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chrislip, D., & Larson, C. (1994). Collaborative leadership: How civic leaders can make a difference. San Francisco: Joessy-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ciger, B. (2001). Multi-organizational, multisector and multicommunity organizations: Setting the research agenda. In M. P. Mandell (Ed.), Getting results through collaboration: Networks and network structures for public policy and management (pp. 71–85). Westport, CA: Quorum Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Community Engagement Division. (2001). Directions statement: Community engagement. Brisbane: Department of Premier and Cabinet, Queensland Government.

    Google Scholar 

  • Denzin, N. (2006). Sociological methods: A sourcebook (5th Edn.). Aldine Transaction. ISBN 978-0-202-30840-1.

  • Dunshire, A. (1978). Implementation in a bureaucracy. Oxford: Martin Robertson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fine, M. (2001). The New South Wales demonstration projects in integrated community care. In M. Mandell (Ed.), Getting results through collaboration: Networks and network structures for public policy and management (pp. 207–219). Westport, CA: Quorum Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Foster-Fishman, P., Berkowitz, S. L., Lounsbury, D. W., Jacobson, S., & Allen, N. A. (2001). Building collaborative capacity. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(2), 241–261.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldsmith, S., & Eggers, W. (2004). Governing by network: The new shape of the public sector. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Government Service Delivery Project. (2000). Innovation and Service delivery frameworkdraft, unpublished document, Office of Public Service Commissioner, Queensland Government: Brisbane.

  • Gray, B. (1989). Collaboration: Finding common ground for multi-party problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

    Google Scholar 

  • Head, B. (1999). The changing role of the public service: Improving service delivery. Canberrra bulletin of public administration, 94, 1–3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Himmelman, A. T. (2002). Collaboration for change: Definitions, decision-making models, roles and collaboration process guide. Minneapolis: Himmelman Consulting.

    Google Scholar 

  • Houge, T. (1994). Community based collaboration: Community wellness multiplied. Oregon State University: Center for Community Leadership.

  • Huxham, C. (2003). Theorising collaboration practice. Public Management Review, 5(1), 401–423.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes, J. E., & Booher, D. E. (1999). Consensus building as role playing and bricolage. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(1) (Winter), 9–26.

    Google Scholar 

  • Keast, R. (2004). Integrated human services: The role of networked arrangements, PhD Thesis, Faculty of Business, Queensland University of Technology.

  • Keast, R. (2011). Joined up governance in Australia: How the past can inform the future. International Journal of Public Administration, 34(4), 221–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keast, R., & Brown, K. (2002). The government service delivery project: A case study of the push and pull of central government coordination. Public Management Review, 2(3), 1–17

    Google Scholar 

  • Keast, R., & Brown, K. (2006). Adjusting to new ways of working: Experiments in service delivery in the public sector. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 65(4), 41–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keast, R., Brown, K., & Mandell, M. (2007a). Getting the right mix; unpacking integration meanings and strategies. International Public Management Journal, 10(1), 9–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Keast, R., Brown, K., & McAulay, M. (2007). Child safey zonal partnership netrworks: Evaluation report, report prepared for Department of Child Safety, Queensland Government, Brisbane.

  • Lauring, J. (2008). Rethinking social theory in international encounters: Language use as a negotiated object for identity making. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8(3), 343–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lawson, H. (2002). Improving conceptual clarity, accuracy and precision and facilitating more coherent institutional designs. In M. Brabeck & M. Walsh (Eds.), The contribution of interprofessional collaboration and comprehensive services to teaching and learning. The National Society for the Study of Education Year-Book, University of Chicago Press.

  • Ling, T. (2002). Delivering joined-up government in the UK: Dimensions, issues and problems. Public Administration, 80, 615–642.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Litterer, J. (1973). The analysis of organizations (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lyons, M. (2001). Third sector: The contribution of non-profit and cooperative enterprises in Australia. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandell, M. P. (1988). Intergovernmental management in interorganizational networks: A revised perspective. International Journal of Public Administration, 11(4), 393–416.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandell, M. P. (1994). Managing interdependencies through program structures: A revised paradigm. American Review of Public Administration, 24(1), 99–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandell, M. P. (Ed.). (2001). Getting results through collaboration: Networks and network structures for public policy and management. Westport, Ct: Quorum Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mandell, M. P., & Keast, R. (2009). A new look at leadership in collaborative networks: Process catalysts. In J. A. Raffel, P. Leisnik & A. Middlebrooks (Eds.), Public sector leadership: International challenges and perspectives (pp.163–178). Edgar Elgar Press.

  • McDonald, C., & Zetlin, D. (2004). The promotion and disruption of community service delivery systems’. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 39(3), 267–282.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGuire, M. (2006). Collaborative public management: Assessing what we know and how we do it. Public Administration Review, 66, 33–43.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melaville, A., & Blank, M. (1991). What it takes: Structuring interagency partnerships to connect children and families to comprehensive services. Washington, DC: Education and Human Services Consortium.

    Google Scholar 

  • Metcalfe, L. (1994). International policy coordination and public management reform. International Review of Administrative Sciences, 60, 271–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Milward, H. B., & Provan, K. (1998). Measuring network structure. Public Administration, 76(2), 387–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulford, C., & Rogers, D. (1982). Defintions and models. In D. Rogers & A. Whetten (Eds.), Interorganizational coordination (pp. 9–13). Ames: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connell, K. (2008). A qualitative evaluation of collaborative practice in the child protection sector in Queensland: Stories of change in the Department of Chid Safety’s Planning and Partnership Program, prepared for Peakcare Queensland Inc, Brisbane.

  • O’Farrell, G. (2002). Public sector reform in Queensland. Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration, 104(June), 6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Flynn, J. (2009). The cult of collaboration in public policy. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 68(1), 112–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ovretveit, L. (1993). Co-ordinating community care. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Podger, A. (2000) Australia’s balance between public and private arrangements’. Health Affairs, May–June 2000.

  • Reddel, T. (2002). Beyond participation, hierarchies, management and markets: ‘New’ governance and place policies. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 61(1), 50–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, P. (2003). I’m looking at the future: Evaluation of reconnect program—Final report, for Department of Family and Community Services, Canberra. http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf.via.

  • Smyth, P. (2008). Collaborative governance: The community sector and collaborative network governance. In Collaborative governance: A new era of public policy in Australia?. Acton: ANU E Press.

  • Swan, J., Scarbrough, H., & Robertson, M. (2002). The construction of ‘communities of practice’ in the management of innovation. Management Learning, 33(4), 477–496.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szirom, T., Lasater, Z., Hyde, J., & Moore, C. (2002). Working together: Integrated governance. Sydney: IPAA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, J. (2000). So how are they going to measure empowerment. In Paper for INTRAC 4th international workshop on the evaluation of social development, Oxford. April.

  • Tierney, L. (1970). Social policy. In A. F. Davis & S. Encel (Eds.), Australian society (2nd ed., pp. 200–233). Melbourne: Cheshire Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vangen, S., & Huxham, C. (2006). Enacting leadership in collaborative advantage: Dilemmas of ideology and pragmatics in the activities of partnership managers. British Journal of Management, 14, 61–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walsh, P. (1993). Welfare policy. In B. Stevens & J. Wanna (Eds.), Goss government: Promise and performance of labor Queensland (pp. 215–225). South Yarra, Melbourne: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Winer, M., & Ray, K. (1994). Collaboration hand-book: Creating, sustaining and enjoying the journey. St Paul, MA: Amhert H Wilder Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woolcock, G., & Boorman, K. (2003). Goodna service integration project: Doing what we know we should, Final Report, The Community Service Research Centre and University of Queensland.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robyn Keast.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Keast, R., Mandell, M. The collaborative push: moving beyond rhetoric and gaining evidence. J Manag Gov 18, 9–28 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-012-9234-5

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10997-012-9234-5

Keywords

  • Collaboration
  • Networks
  • Systems
  • Competencies
  • Practice framework