Collaborative Working and the Issue of Sustainability

Collaborative Working and the Issue of Sustainability

The initiation and regulation of collaborative arrangements are important, increasingly pervasive and knotty tasks of public and business management. Analyses of recent developments in public policy development and implementation and public service management (Challis et al., 1988; Harrison, 1993; Leach et al., 1994; Metcalfe and Richards, 1990; Nocon, 1994) propose a crucial, bridging or integrative role for collaborative, inter-organizational working which holds out the possibility of greater ‘whole system effectiveness’, or, in the terms of this volume, ‘collaborative advantage’. There has been a parallel exploration of developments in collaborative business management (Kanter, 1994; Lamming, 1992). In each, there is a recognition that making collaboration work is a significant challenge.

Recent experience of work with and observation of collaborative ventures which have been developed to enhance public service provision, particularly in the area of community health and well-being, underpins the argument of this chapter. Typically, such ventures would see three or more agencies concerned with community health and welfare working together to [Page 81]study community needs, develop shared statements of policy, and establish joint programmes or projects. They cover the spectrum of collaborative arrangements suggested by Gray in Chapter 4, ranging from exploratory policy dialogues through advisory and confederative structures to formal, contractual relationships. In certain cases, local leadership and innovation have led to the creation of these collaborative interventions in such areas as community development and leadership, local service development and policies targeted at particular priority groups; in other cases, alliances have been established in the context of a powerful ‘call to action’ made by central policy-making bodies. Regardless of the source of initial impetus, the alliances often have no new funding, or central and local funding regimes mean that additional commitments of resource have strict time limits.

* From an advertisement for the post of Chief Executive of a company set up to support the creation of economic initiatives, employment opportunities and inner city regeneration in a UK locality.

To illustrate the genre, in one such venture, a group of public and voluntary sector organizations operating within a tightly knit sub-region of England were invited by a national governmental agency to form a ‘network’ to support a short, anti-smoking campaign played out largely through the mass media. The invitation was to produce concerted, local action — events, services and activities which should also have publicity value. The national agency would provide funding for a part-time coordinator and a budget for local action for the duration of the campaign.

A sufficient number of local agencies responded to the call to action to make the local campaign viable, indeed vibrant. Each agency had a particular contribution to make, within a broad matrix of geographical ‘jurisdiction’ (covering either the sub-region or one of five localities within the sub-region) and ‘sectoral base’ (local government services, health services, voluntary, campaigning and service organizations). Whilst every agency added strength to the collaboration, the withdrawal of any one agency would not, in itself, have threatened the viability of the collaborative effort. During the first campaign, a clear pattern of active participation and passive support emerged. This was reinforced during a second campaign period, one year on, which was again supported financially by the national agency, but only after a search for local funding had produced insufficient support to continue.

...