Multi-Sectoral Partnership Working – Pain or Panacea?

Andrew Hills

Research aims and objectives

1. To identify the motivations for partnership working of current member organisations;

2. To evaluate if the cultural attributes of the various sectors represented throughout the organisation affect the degree to which these sectors engage with DCP;

3. To determine and identify the various forms of ‘added value’ associated with the development and delivery of the Community Strategy;

4. To recommend any changes to help individual member organisations and DCP itself enhance the added value of partnership working, to help improve the effectiveness of the Community Strategy.

Justification for choosing this topic

• Professional interest - the notion of ‘added value’ has been a key topic of interest for numerous people involved with DCP;

• Little research in this area – this has been revealed through the literature review;

• Timing – the research ran parallel to the preparation of the new Community Strategy and was finalised to help inform the current review of DCP itself;

• Logistical considerations – relatively easy to gain access to people and information to help inform the research topic.

Components of the research ‘journey’

• Literature review - describes the work of other academics/practitioners in this area to help inform the research.

• Design and methodology – discusses and describes the best way to carry out the research i.e the ‘tactics’ deployed.

• Analysis of findings - analyses and presents the main findings from the primary data to help inform the aims and objectives of the research.

• Conclusions - designed to further explore and explain some of the main findings by drawing on the Literature Review to help either support or challenge the conclusions that are made.

• Recommendations – presents a number of practical suggestions to help address some of the key issues arising from the research.

• Reflection – outlines the strengths and weaknesses of the research approach and suggests further areas for research.

Literature Review

Scope of Literature Review

Public sector strategy and partnership working

Added value Culture

Public sector strategy and partnership working

• ‘Wicked’ or ‘intractable problems’ that ‘transcend the boundaries of this fractured organisational landscape’ (Skelcher, Mathur and Smith, 2004).

• ‘Network’ forms of governance (Reed et al, 2004)• Conflict between the Government’s new managerialist

philosophy (Johnson and Osborne, 2003). • Seven characteristics of a successful partnership (Mariotti,

1996). • Partnership Assessment Tool – PAT, (ODPM, 2003). • Difficulties of working in partnership (Bristow et al, 2003) -

Conflicting goals, Contested roles, Confused authority, Constrained capacity.

Culture

• Culture – ‘being like the wind, obviously present and important but elusive to capture’ (Rose and Lawton, 1999).

• Cultural Web (Johnson and Scholes, 2002).

• Classification of cultural types -Leadership/power, hierarchy, task, clan (Charles Handy,1978).

• ‘No partnership can become truly effective and motivated if meetings are run like a committee, with people attending meetings yet not getting to know one another, long information-based agenda items and a minimum of real debate’(Wetenhall,2004).

Added value

• Definition - ‘value added’ of the LSP is the connection between the activities of the LSP and improved outcomes on the ground, in other words the benefit that working together brings over and above what agencies would achieve working alone’ (ODPM, 2004).

• Distinction between process and real outcomes (Bristow et al, 2003).

• ‘The potential of the LSP lies in focusing on what’s different about working together and what more can be achieved: not on managing what partners already do’.

• ‘Keep partners with you by focusing on how working together can make more of a difference than just working alone’. (IDeA, 2005).

Design and methodology

• Sample group – City of Opportunity and Environment City (‘Top down – bottom up’)

• Research approach – Inductive (theory building).• Research strategy - Case Study• Data collection methodology – Questionnaire and semi-

structured interviews• Questionnaire – Quantitative (Partnership Assessment Tool)

and qualitative.• Good triangulation of data.

Questionnaire – open questions

Q2. Why did your organisation become a member of Environment City? (If necessary, please continue on a separate piece of paper when answering any of the questions in Part 1). (To help inform objective 1.)

Q14. Can you list the three most important things you feel your Executive has achieved by working in partnership over the last 3 years?1.2.3.

(To help inform objective 3.)  

  

Questionnaire – closed questions 

Q5. Principle 1 – Recognise and accept the need for partnership 

 

To what extent do you agree with the following statements in respect of Environment City? 

 Stronglyagree

 Agree

 Disagree

 Stronglydisagree

 Comments

1. There have been substantial past achievements within the partnership.

         

2. The factors associated with successful partnership working are known and understood.

         

Analysis of findings

• Questionnaire response rate - Environment City - 83%

City of Opportunity - 68%.

Sector groups responding to the questionnaire:

• Environment City – Council (5); Public (3); VCS (5); Private (2)

= 15. • City of Opportunity – Council (7); Public (5); VCS (1); Private (1)

= 13.

Overall score for the Partnership Assessment Tool (PAT)

90 95 100 105

City of Op.

Env.City

PAT - Average score by sector 

80 90 100 110

Private

VCS

Public

Council

City of Op.

Env. City

City of Op.

Env.City

Env.City

Env. City

City of Op.

Semi-structured interviews

Sector groups responding to the questionnaire:

• Environment City – Council (1); Public (0); VCS (2); Private (1) = 4.

• City of Opportunity – Council (1); Public (2); VCS (0); Private (0) = 3.

Environment City interviews

 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

VCS Council VCS Private

Leadership

Hierachy

Clan

Task

City of Opportunity interviews

 

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Council Public Public

Leadership

Hierachy

Clan

Task

Conclusions

Objective 1 - To identify the motivations for partnership working of current member organisations

1. There are clearly different motivations in each of the two Cities for partnership working.

Conclusions

Objective 2 - To evaluate if the cultural attributes of the various sectors represented throughout the organisation affect the degree to which these sectors engage with DCP

2. There is a marked difference in how members from both Cities perceive the organisational culture in which they operate.

3. Environment City members representing the VCS are relatively positive about how the group operates and their role within it.

Conclusions Objective 3 - To define and identify the various forms of ‘added

value' associated with the development and delivery of the Community Strategy

 4. The added value of partnership working is very different for both Cities.

5. There is a clear need for both Cities to adopt a limited and highly

focused partnership agenda.

6. The added value of partnership working can arise in many different

forms.

Recommendations

1. DCP should acknowledge that all its Cities operate in different ways and as a consequence of this, may have different support and engagement requirements.

2. DCP should develop as part of its performance management process, a suitable procedure to help capture added value; especially those low- visibility/high-value initiatives which are notoriously hard to identify but can result in considerable benefits.

3. Individual members should be surveyed on an annual basis to continuously re-evaluate the business case for engaging with DCP and the City’s Community Strategy.

Recommendations

4. Members of Env. City need to develop a clearer sense of self-interest to help clarify what they want out of this relationship and what skills and resources they can bring to the table.

5. Members from both Cities need to identify and prioritise a discrete number of programmes that all partners can embrace to truly add value for DCP as a whole and for their own organisations.

Reflection

• Overall scope of the project could have been more focused.

• Culture is a notoriously difficult concept to grasp.

• Ambiguity of the Partnership Assessment Tool (PAT)

• Semi-structured interviews

Reflection

Areas for further research:

• Identifying the ideal culture of DCP.

• How politicians perceive DCP.

• The role of local communities in the development of the Community Strategy.

• Partnership arrangements within the Local Area Agreement