The public sector drive to pool resources, combine purchasing power and reduce overheads has led to a surge in collaborative programmes across a breadth of organisations, usually thrown together in response to a central directive.
Often, location is the only common characteristic between these organisations. These programmes have typically evolved over years, and result in primary care trusts, police services or schools joining forces even though they frequently serve demographically different populations and varied environments.
Collaborative programmes can become dysfunctional if they are not carefully constructed. Resources are withheld, decision-making paralysis can ensue and benefits are not delivered.
Balancing the benefits
Corporate programmes are most likely to succeed where the outcomes meet both individual stakeholder needs as well as the central corporate objective. The business case should highlight what's in it for individual organisations as well as explaining the corporate value. Everyone will come from a different starting point – and some will gain more than others. The benefits case needs to address this balance and any associated costs at the outset.
A good example of useful guidance is being prepared at the moment for the schools cluster programme that has been piloted by the National College for Leadership of Schools and Children's services. The programme aims to encourage schools to form clusters to share resources and knowledge with help from a partnership adviser.
The toolkit they are developing encourages the clusters to be clear from the beginning where mutual benefit is likely to be derived and where only some members might gain benefit. Their advice then encourages members to agree an input of resources appropriate for their size and the benefit they will derive from each cluster project.
For some programmes the corporate benefits are obvious and compelling, and participation in these programmes is inevitable. For example, an initiative to get neighbouring police forces to use compatible communications equipment should save money.
But how do you compensate the force that implemented new incompatible equipment only two years ago? This force would need to terminate its contract early – these costs need to be revealed up front and taken into account.
Governance: creating a collaborative board
In a programme rooted in a single organisation there is an overlap between project governance and the organisation's corporate governance. Things get done because, ultimately, the management line at the top of the organisation insists it is done. This back-up isn't available in collaborative programmes which will have no ready-established parent body to step in to support the senior responsible owner.
Governance can be a delicate issue among partners. Reaching early written agreement on issues such as organisational weighting and rights of veto will help maintain momentum and clear the way to quick decision-making. Going back to the example of the advice to schools clusters, schools will be encouraged to consider these issues before the cluster starts so that it has clear terms of reference.
The board also needs to manage partners that fall behind. In non-collaborative programmes, the organisation's leaders can relieve other operational or resource pressures to get things done. It's not as simple in a multiple stakeholder programme. The board needs sufficient buy-in from each participant to cross-deploy resources from one organisation to another using early benefits realisation as the carrot.
In a recent systems implementation across 38 NHS trusts in the south-west, the cost of data transfer for some trusts became an issue, particularly for those relying on a third party but the board was able to reach agreement that for the sake of moving forward the programme should provide a subsidy, particularly for smaller trusts where the cost of data transfer, although not excessive, was proving a barrier to the whole project.
Developing a collaborative culture
Fostering an environment of collaborative working is as much about cultural change as it is about project management. If organisations are to increase the amount of collaboration, the programme needs to promote mutual trust, allaying fears that cooperation will lead to loss of independence. In larger programmes this can be a challenge.
Balancing swift decision-making with inclusion means that organisations may need to group together and agree a mandate for decision-making rests with a single individual. How these organisations are grouped is important. It's better to rely on common characteristics, such as size or customer base, rather than just banding together organisations that are geographically close.
Collaborative projects are most successful where there is an understanding of the corporate-versus-individual benefits balance from the outset. A respect for each other, re-enforced with agreed governance will help stakeholders be confident that they will receive proportional benefit to the contribution that they make.
Linda Harris is a consultant in Tribal's government practice
From Bubb's Blog
From Whitehall Watch
