Elucidating Multi-disciplinary and Inter-agency Collaboration Process for Coordinated Elderly Care: A Case Study of a Japanese Care Access Center

  • Miki SaijoEmail author
  • Tsutomu Suzuki
  • Makiko Watanabe
  • Shishin Kawamoto
Conference paper
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 454)


This study compares the process of inter-agency collaboration among multi-disciplinary agencies within Japan as they work to provide well-coordinated care for the elderly through a Community Care Access Center (CCAC). Using the KJ method, also known as an “affinity diagram”, in two group meetings (before and after CCAC establishment) with practitioners and administrators from 6 agencies in the city of Kakegawa, Japan. 521 comments by agencies were coded into 37 categories. In comparing the comments from the two meetings, the portion of negative comments regarding organization management decreased, while comments on the shared problems of the CCAC increased. A multiple correspondence analysis indicated that the 6 agencies shared a greater awareness of issues after the establishment of the CCAC, but the problems pointed out by the visiting nurses agency differed from those of the other agencies.


Community Care Access Center Multi-disciplinary and Inter-agency collaboration Elderly care KJ method COFOR 



We would like to express our deepest appreciation to the staff of the Kakegawa City Hall senior citizens support section and the staff of the East Fukushia facility who helped us with the case study presented in this paper. We would also like to thank Dr. Hiroko Otsuka, Dr. Hiroshi Takeda, and Mr. Taku Hirano for acting as meeting facilitators in cooperation with the authors.


  1. 1.
    Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare: Act for Partial Revision of the Long-Term Care Insurance Act, Etc., in Order to Strengthen Long-Term Care Service Infrastructure (2011).
  2. 2.
    Ontario Association of Community Care Access Centres. 2009/2010 CCAC Quality Report.
  3. 3.
    Bromiley, P., Cummings, L.L.: Transactions costs in organizations with trust. Res. Negot. Organ. 5, 219–250 (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    McKnight, D.H., Cummings, L.L., Chervany, N.L.: Initial trust formation in new organizational relationships. Acad. Manag. Rev. 23(3), 473–490 (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Okamoto, S.K.: Interagency collaboration with high risk gang youth. Child Adolesc. Soc. Work J. 18(1), 5–19 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Salmon, G.: Multi-agency collaboration: the challenges for CAMHS. Child Adolesc. Mental Health 9(4), 156–161 (2004)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Paletz, S.B., Schunn, C.D., Kim, K.H.: The interplay of conflict and analogy in multidisciplinary teams. Cognition 126(1), 1–19 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Department of Health: NHS planning and priorities guidance 1997/98. HMSO, London (1997)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Robinson, M., Cottrell, D.: Health professionals in multi-disciplinary and multi-agency teams: changing professional practice. J. Interprof. Care 19(6), 547–560 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Salmon, G., Faris, J.: Multi-agency collaboration, multiple levels of meaning: social constructionism and the CMM model as tools to further our understanding. J. Fam. Ther. 28(3), 272–292 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marmolin, H., Sundblad, Y., Pehrson, B.: An analysis of design and collaboration in a distributed environment. In: Proceedings of the Second Conference on European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, pp. 147–162. Kluwer Academic Publishers (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hoc, J.M., Carlier, X.: Role of a common frame of reference in cognitive cooperation: sharing tasks between agents in air traffic control. Cogn. Technol. Work 4(1), 37–47 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hoc, J.M.: Towards a cognitive approach to human–machine cooperation in dynamic situations. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 54(4), 509–540 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Scupin, R.: The KJ method: a technique for analyzing data derived from Japanese ethnology. Hum. Organ. 56(2), 233–237 (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Takeda, N., Shiomi, A., Kawai, K., Ohiwa, H.: Requirement analysis by the KJ editor. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering, pp. 98–101 (1993)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Strauss, A.L., Corbin, J.: Basics of Qualitative Research, vol. 15. Sage Publications, Newbury Park (1990)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kawakita, J., Matsuzawa, T., Yamada, Y.: Emergence and essence of the KJ method: an interview with Jiro Kawakita (in Japanese). Jpn. J. Qual. Psychol. 2(2), 6–28 (2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miki Saijo
    • 1
    Email author
  • Tsutomu Suzuki
    • 2
  • Makiko Watanabe
    • 3
  • Shishin Kawamoto
    • 4
  1. 1.International Student CenterTokyo Institute of TechnologyTokyoJapan
  2. 2.Faculty of Liberal ArtsTohoku Gakuin UniversitySendaiJapan
  3. 3.Graduate School of Science and TechnologyTokyo University of ScienceChibaJapan
  4. 4.Institute for the Advancement of Higher EducationHokkaido UniversitySapporoJapan

Personalised recommendations