Understanding Organisations: Structuring and managing inter-organisational
(network) relationships, including intersectoral work, collaborative working
practices and partnerships

Introduction

This review of the structure and management of intersectoral, collaborative
and partnership practice is presented in the following sections:

• Definitions of intersectoral, collaborative and
  partnership working
• Changing philosophy and the development of a
  collaborative / partnership approach
• Development of collaborative / partnership
  structures
• Benefits and challenges of collaboration and
  partnership

Definitions

Inter-sectoral action (ISA) for health:

Denotes a recognised relationship between different parts of the health
sector and other sectors in order to achieve health outcomes in a more efficient
and effective way than could be achieved by the health sector working alone
(Harris et al 1995).

Collaborative Working:

People working across organizational boundaries toward some positive end (Huxham
and Vangen 2005).

Partnership Working:

A range of concepts have been used in relation to collaboration and
partnership working within public sector discussions and the following terms
used throughout this study are abbreviated in the glossary.

• Partner: One who has a share or part with others. The meaning
  implies the existence of a ‘whole’ of which the partner must be aware
  (Pratt et al 1998)
• Partnership: An agreement between two or more independent bodies to
  work collectively to achieve an objective (Audit Commission 1998)

Changing Philosophy and Partnership Development

The developing philosophy of new public health, embraces an evolving
paradigm shift from, scientific approaches for problem management to alternative
approaches in solution finding.

Table 1: Changing Philosophy (After Jupp, B 2000:15)

The current landscape is characterised by a host of complex and seemingly
intractable problems and issues e.g. community safety, poverty, social
exclusion, health inequalities, teenage pregnancies, urban regeneration,
substance misuse, climate change, homelessness.  These are often referred
to as ‘wicked issues’ because they defy our efforts to delineate their
boundaries and to identify their causes (Rittel and Weber 1973). Thinking about
‘wicked issues’ requires a language that reflects relationships,
interconnections and inter-dependencies – holistic thinking. By the late 1990’s,
the emphasis upon collaboration and partnership were identified within policy
initiatives linked to health promotion, public health, economic regeneration,
and social inclusion.

According to Jupp (2000 p13), the greatest increase in the use of
partnership, has been among policy-makers and politicians, with the word ‘partnership’
mentioned 6,197 times in parliament in 1999 up from just 38 times in 1989”.
Table 2 reflects this increasing concern of government departments with the
promotion of partnership working.

Table 2:  Examples of policy documents promoting partnership working

Development of collaborative / partnership
structures

Whilst some people actually use the term collaboration interchangeably with
partnership, others may mean cooperation when they say partnerships.

Table 3: Explanations of types of partnerships

The concept of partnership has important impacts in working practices across
many public and private sectors including nursing, health promotion, local
government community development and business. Within these fields people use
different forms of wording for the same concept. Table 4 provides examples of
the range of programmes which require forms of partnership working.

Table 4: Examples of partnership programmes

Benefits and challenges of collaboration and
partnership development

Partnership Stages and Lifecycles

Working through the processes involved in conceptualising, developing,
implementing and evaluating partnership progress can be analogous to the kind of
processes involved within the basic cycle of experiential learning e.g.
formulating abstract concepts and generalisations, testing these implications in
new situations, getting involved in the concrete experience and then taking time
to observe and reflect upon our experiences and ideas, so too we may move
through a cycle or stages within a partnership context.

Figure 2: Partnership Lifecycle (http://www.bridge-central.co.uk/)

 

For further information concerning partnership culture and dynamics
please see Health Knowledge: Collaborative Working to Improve Health and
Well-being (website address…)

Benefits

The opportunities that partnership brings are identified by the distinctions
made between collaborations which can offer a range of benefits. These new ways
of working and thinking in dealing with difficult problems invite presumptions
towards innovation, experimentation, risk-taking and entrepreneurship.

Figure 1: Benefits of Collaboration after Hastings 1996; Mayo 1997; Jupp 2000) and (http://www.lgpartnerships.com/resources/lead-benpart.asp)

 

1.  Greater Impact

The exposure of different working methods and assumptions of different
partners may stimulate innovation and the creation of new perspectives and
provide increased reach to disadvantaged populations as well as deliver beyond
the capabilities of any one partner

2.  More Resources

To pool or spend resources with benefits towards increasing efficiency and
effectiveness, and strengthened negotiating power

3.  New and Better Ways

The combination of knowledge, resources, approaches and operational cultures
enable partners to create more effective ways of doing things with new
perspectives and improved intelligence about needs and opportunities

4.  Spread Risks

The complementary strengths, resources, perspectives offers greater
flexibility within a team

5.  Reduce/ Share Costs

By sharing costs of common functions (in promoting and delivering services,
in common systems, e.g. for quality, use of the Internet).

Challenges

“It is one thing to set up a partnership.  It is another to develop
the mix of skills, energy and commitment, to make the partnership effective”.
(Markwell et al 2003).

Although partnerships attract additional resources perceived as a strong
incentive for collaborative working, partnerships can also be difficult,
bringing risks as well as opportunities and governance can be problematic (Audit
Commission 1998). Understanding the major factors that influence effective
collaborative behaviour and competence of key agents (Williams 2002) is key to
the success of partnership management.

Understanding the major factors that influence effective collaborative
behaviour is linked to the competence of key agents managing within
inter-organisational arenas. These people often termed “boundary spanners”
(Williams 2002) who play a role in:

“bringing unlikely partners together, in breaking though red tape and
seeing things in a different way” (LGMB 1997).

These bundles of skills, abilities and personal characteristics rely on
relational and inter-personal attributes designed to build social capital and
include:

• The building and sustaining of relationships
• Managing within non-hierarchical environments
• Managing complexity and understanding the motives, roles and
  responsibilities.

A final comment from Huxham and Vangen (2005:257),

  “for practitioners of collaboration is go and do it – get your
hands dirty, get the   buzz, don’t expect miracles., get cross if it
helps but don’t despair”.

For further information concerning partnership monitoring and evaluation see

A Consumer Guide to Resources (Markwell 2003).

http://www.nice.org.uk/niceMedia/documents/partnership_working.pdf

This guide is the result of research into a wide range of publications and
interviews with their authors. These printed and web-based resources support
partnership working across organisations within the public, private and
community sectors.

 

References

• Audit Commission (1998) A Fruitful Partnership.
  London.
• Cabinet Office (1999)  Professional Policy Making for the Twenty First Century.  Report: Strategic Policy Making Team
• Costongs, C. and Springett, J. (1997) ‘Joint working and the production of a City health plan: the Liverpool experience.’ Health Promotion International 12(1): 9–19
• Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1999) Cross-cutting Issues Affecting Local Government - Full
  ReportUniversityof the West of England and Office for Public Management 
• Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2000b)  National Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewal Report of Policy Action Team 17: Joining it up Locally 
  London: Crown
• Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (2000c)  National Strategy for neighbourhood Renewal Report of Policy Action Team 17: Joining it up Locally 
  London: Crown
• Department of Health (1997) The New NHS White Paper.
  London: DH
• Department of Health (1998) The Health of the Nation – a policy assessed.
  London : The Stationary Office
• Fortin, J-P., Groleau, G., Lemieux, V., O’Neill, M. and Lamarche, P (1994) Intersectoral Action Summary Report. Quebec:
  Laval University
  
• Harris, E;  Wise, M; Hawe, P; Finlay, P and Nutbeam, D (1995) Working together: intersectoral action for health. Commonwealth of
  Australia : Centre for Health Promotion
• Hutchinson , J. and
  Campbell, M. (1998) Working in Partnership: Lessons from the Literature.
  Crown
• Huxham, C. and Vangen, S. (2005) Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage. London: Routledge.
• Jupp (2000) Working Together Creating a better environment for cross-sector partnerships  London : Demos
• LGMB. (1997) Networks and networking  London
  : LGMB
• Markwell, S., Watson, J., Speller., V., Platt, S. and Younger, T. (2003) The Working Partnership Book 1: Introduction London: Health Development Agency
• New Opportunities Fund (1999) Healthy Living Centres: information for applicants.
  London: NOF.
• Pratt, J; Plamping, D; and Gordon, P (1998)  Partnership: fit for purpose? 
  London : Kings Fund
• Rittel, H.W. J. and Webber M.M. (1973) Dilemmas in a general Theory of Planning Policy Sciences Vol  4 155-159
• Williams, P. (2002)  The Competent Boundary Spanner. Public Administration Vol80 (1) 103-124
• Wilson, A. and Charlton, K. (1997) Making partnerships work. Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
• Wood, D.J. and Gray, B, (1991) Towards a Comprehensive Theory of Collaboration Journal of Applied Behavioural Science Vol (27) 139-162

 

© S Markwell 2009