UNCG Collaborative Capacity Work Group

WORKING DRAFT  

BUILDING COLLABORATIVE CAPACITYA GUIDANCE DOCUMENT

Collaborative Capacity Guidance Document Draft Mar 8.docs

March 31, 2012

CCWG Wikispace: http://uncgcollaborativecapacity.wikispaces.com/

Table of Contents

I. IntroductionA. Why Guidance on Building Collaborative Capacity Is

Needed B. Guidance Document Structure and Format

C. Guidance Document Format Definitions (box)

II. The Conceptual Framework for Collaborative Capacity   References and Literature Review

III. Collaborative Capacity Initiatives and Lessons Learned IV. Collaborative Capacity Literature Review Appendices

Appendix- KSAs for Collaborative Capacity

1

I. INTRODUCTION

“Collaboration is becoming the 21st century’s governance tool of choice and necessity.”-UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies

A. Why Guidance on Building Collaborative Capacity Is Needed

Governance in the United States is in transition and is increasingly accomplished through a complex set of networks, partnerships, and collaborations in the shadow of formal organizational hierarchies which continue to play central roles in government organizations. The complex societal issues facing government require new types of collaborative relationships to be forged. Increased fiscal constraints is pushing managers to develop new ways of doing business with citizens, the private sector, and other government organizations

The past decade has seen considerable growth in the number of collaborations among government agencies at the federal and state levels and with private sector and nongovernmental partners to achieve mission results. In government and industry, collaboration is on the rise because it has been found to reduce litigation, decrease costs, and increase innovation (Mankin, Cohen & Fitzgerald, 2004).

Today we have a better picture of the individual competencies needed for high performance and successful collaboration.1 What are the characteristics of organizations whose members effectively and successfully collaborate? How do they make collaboration a leadership competency and support its use by managers and staff in pursuing mission?

Building collaborative capacity has been mostly a by-product and not a focus of this activity.2 We are only beginning to develop and

1 See, UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies, 2011, University Network for Collaborative Governance, http://www.policyconsensus.org/uncg/collaborativecompetencies.html 2 “The concept of a capacity for collaboration is a metaphor that has occurred to many theorists and researchers. There is a growing body of literature, and there appears to be some agreement that topics such as social capital, network ties, trust, and incentives are

2

validate ways to assess individual and institutional collaborative capacity and provide guidance to agencies in terms of aligning their strategies, incentives, rewards, policies and procedures to support this. The audiences for this guidance include those leaders making high level funding and policy decisions for agencies and organizations, senior management working on embedding collaborative capacity within the organization and agency and staff on the front line engaged in representing the agencies in collaboration.

B. Guidance Document Structure & Format

A guide focusing on collaborative capacity will offer managers and leaders and framework and guidance on:

How to address and facilitate political leadership/authority and empowerment for staff to use collaboration where appropriate,

Understanding the investments of time and resources needed to support collaboration

The development of institutional procedures that reward use of collaborative strategies and

Review and changes regarding organizational culture and collaboration.

January 20, 2012 WG Comments on Format and ScopeThe group reviewed again the possible boundaries for the effort and agreed that the Workgroup should seek to approach this effort focusing on practical guidance to public/private/NGO organizations and managers on developing collaborative capacity within their organizations. This should be viewed with an understanding that these become important for organizations due to drivers (partners, stakeholders) that are external to the organization.  The Working Group agreed to keep an open mind as to both the internal and external conditions and opportunities and drivers to develop collaborative capacity within an organization or agency. The Work Group agreed that the Guidance document should have a range of possible strategies, approaches and examples for addressing each of the collaborative capacity components.  “The

critical. The major need identified by theorists and inductive researchers (e.g., Bardach, 1998) is to operationalize the overarching concept and contributing variables.”

3

guide we are cooking up should include a range of strategies that an agency might choose to use in developing collaborative capacity in a more systematic way, i.e. one size doesn’t fit all.” They also suggested that there should be tools and guidance on both how to conduct collaborative capacity assessments and how to establish and implement evaluation and measurement of the efforts. We should seek to consider different organizational circumstances and contexts.  In the November meeting the group suggested strategies might be framed in terms of challenges, impediments and opportunities for each of the components of the conceptual framework. The development of a literature review on developing collaborative capacity plus those drawn from professional experience and examples should inform these tested strategies. The NEPA Collaboration Handbook (posted on the wiki site) http://www.ecr.gov/pdf/Collaboration_in_NEPA_Oct_2007.pdf, might offer an approach to framing guidance on strategies. On the November conference call, the participants also discussed the importance of including examples of challenges and strategies throughout the guide (as part of the body or as sidebars). In terms of a format for guidance, Shari Shaftlein FHA/USDOT suggested we look at the online organization of Transportation for Communities - Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) http://www.transportationforcommunities.com/ TCAPP is a decision support tool, built from the experiences of transportation partners and stakeholders, which provides how-to information when it is most needed to improve how transportation planners and decision makers develop, prioritize, and inform transportation plans and projects.  “This represents the Transportation sector's effort to mainstream collaboration in all Planning and Project Development Decisions and incorporate several years and millions of dollars of research products produced via SHRPII http://www.trb.org/StrategicHighwayResearchProgram2SHRP2/Blank2.aspx with a focus on capacity (in Transportation terms - new roads).”

Bill Logue Guidance Format Thoughts (from google doc comments):

If the group has discussed this before my joining please excuse but wanted to pose a basic issue that impacts format. It seems that there are several possible audiences and purposes for a guidance document that have implications for format and how it is accessed and used. These include:

4

1. People involved at high level policy and funding decisions about making the initial determination to move to build collaborative capacity in an organization, e.g., agency and executive leadership, legislators. (The use and implementation then needs to be tracked to make the case for continuing support through leadership transitions and political shifts because programs and efforts will need to justify themselves on an ongoing basis – any lessons from university centers on this could be helpful.)

2. Senior staff making broader decisions on embedding collaborative capacity practices pursuant to a policy decision.

3. Staff who are working on design and implementation of collaborative capacity and competency. These are also the folks who will be providing information to the above.

For the first group the broad brush static (Print, PDF) approach would seem most useful. For the second and third groups (on the ground or line staff for lack of a better term), they are more likely to need information in the moment which is more dynamic in how it is delivered, accessed and updated so that they can: a) design/implement or b) provide just in time input to senior leadership to build knowledge and awareness.

The issue of turnover requiring ongoing education and advocacy for collaborative capacity may play into format – at the senior level about why it is important and at the supporting levels on the what and how of collaborative capacity. C. The History of this University Network for Collaborative Governance Initiative Building on a session at the June, 2011 UNCG meeting in Portland, OR, a small group of UNCG members agreed to explore whether and then how to usefully expand upon the UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies report to provide collaborative capacity guidance for those working within organizations in collaborative governance settings. In the Fall of 2011 a work group was formed with members from the Network, from agencies with collaborative capacity experience and other experts.

It was agreed that institutional collaborative capacity should be explored in the context of the evolving understanding of collaborative governance,[1] the UNCG Guide to Collaborative

5

Competencies,[2] and recent efforts in implementing collaborative capacity assessments and initiatives[3]

DEFINITIONS Collaborative Capacity is the ability of organizations to effectively enter into, develop, and sustain intra and inter-organizational systems in pursuit of collective and shared outcomes and goals. It focuses on the organization’s network for support of collaborative efforts both within and beyond the organization. In order to effectively engage and participate in collaborative governance initiatives, public agencies and private organizations need to assess their organizational collaborative capacity as well as the capacity of their staff.

Collaborative Competency focuses on the individual’s capacity for and mastery of effective collaboration. The UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies focuses on guiding public managers interested in improving their staff’s collaborative competence through continuing education and training.  

Collaborative Governance is a concept that addresses the process of establishing, steering, facilitating, operating, and monitoring cross-sector organizational arrangements to address public policy problems that cannot be easily addressed by a single organization or the public sector alone. This mode of governance focuses on public issues and brings multiple stakeholders from different sectors together in common forum to engage in consensus-oriented solution seeking, problem solving and decision-making in order to leverage and build on the unique attributes and resources of each.

Governance is the process by which public ends and means are identified, agreed upon, and pursued. It encompasses both formal and informal systems of relationships and networks for decision-making and problem solving.

Government relates to the specific jurisdiction in which authority is exercised.

II.   THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY

 I am hoping to be on the call today, at least for an hour.  I read through the compiled draft and attach my few marginal notes at

6

this time. In the process of reviewing it though I thought of one way of looking at the system components you might consider:1. Leadership commitment to collaboration2. Institutional incentives for collaboration3. Collaborative organizational culture4. Collaborative competencies

Just a thought. It integrates the two frameworks of Marci's and ties in with the competencies guide. But you may be way down the road on this, in which case, accept my apologies for this tardy suggestion.

Kirk

In 2008, as part of a project focusing on helping the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) assess its capacity to use collaborative strategies in carrying out its mission in the water resources planning and management arena, DuPraw undertook a literature review to identify the components of collaborative capacity from an organizational and “systems” point of view. DuPraw and the USACE team defined “collaborative capacity” as “the ability of organizations to enter into, develop, and sustain interorganizational systems in pursuit of collective outcomes”; fostering collaborative capacity requires “systematic attention, resources, commitment, and opportunities for interaction” (Hocevar, Thomas and Jansen, 2006). “Building collaborative capacity,” say Hocevar and colleagues, An organization that has a robust collaborative capacity is able to “learn, experiment, and adapt creatively to threats and opportunities” (Innes and Booher, 2003). The team defined “system” as a “set of interrelated components, acting with a common purpose, that exchanges information and energy with its environment”; further: (1) systems are comprised of subsystems; (2) system activities can transform the system into another state; (3) systems have self-regulatory and adaptive mechanisms; and (4) systems must function within a particular context (Diamond and McDonald 1996).  In large, non-linear systems, changes to one subsystem can radically alter the way in which the whole system functions (Anderson 1999). Each component of a system (such as a branch of a federal agency) may have its own unique role and culture, but each depends on the effective functioning of the other system components for the overall success of the organization (Costantino and Merchant 1996). DuPraw’s findings, published in the 2011 in the USACE report, The

7

State of Collaboration in the Corps: A Field Perspective,” suggested that there are five inter-dependent components to such a system: (1) Political Leadership, Authority, and Empowerment; (2) Individual Knowledge, Skills and Abilities; (3) Time and Resources; (4) Institutional Procedures; and (5) Organizational Culture. Each of these is briefly defined below; a more detailed discussion can be found in the 2011 USACE report mentioned above. Political leadership, authority and empowerment -- The authority to encourage collaboration, reprogram budgets to support it, and to implement resulting decisions, including monitoring and evaluation (Jones 2005).  Political support is needed for cross-project and inter-agency activities, including training and discussion forums (Interagency Initiative to Foster Collaborative Problem Solving and Environmental Conflict Resolution, Briefing Report for Federal Department Leadership  2004 (revised 2005)). Leaders need to able to advocate for  collaboration, explain its benefits, and encourage ongoing learning about how to do it well (Foster-Fishman et al.). Those initiating collaboration projects must, among other things, have interpersonal networks they can tap into at all levels of their organizations, and all participants should have the authority and accountability to negotiate and make decisions on behalf of their respective organizations (Hocevar, Thomas, and Jansen (2006). Knowledge, skills, and abilities – The USACE team used the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) shown in Appendix 1. It is a compilation of KSAs used by the Departments of Defense, Interior and Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as several additional KSAs derived from DuPraw’s literature review. Time and Resources – In the environmental / public policy realm, collaborative projects are frequently multi-year initiatives, entailing many meetings and much in-house; related time-consuming activities can include budgeting, research, implementation, monitoring and evaluation (Koontz et al. 2004).  Having a source of dedicated resources contributes to success (Hocevar, Thomas, and Jansen, 2006). Resources are not limited to funding, but include human and technical resources (Koontz et al., 2004). Institutional Procedures – official ways of carrying out the organization’s operations, including developing leadership commitment, establishing policies, rules, norms and practices; and obtaining resources and cooperation (Imperial 2005). Most organizations also have institutional procedures pertaining to communication with various audiences and methods of fostering

8

external awareness (e.g., interactions with politicians, public agencies at various levels of governance, and branch offices). Organizational Culture – Organizational culture reflects a shared worldview, ideas of what is right and wrong, priorities and values (Goldberg 2008). Thus, it has a profound impact on the way its personnel engage in collaborative endeavors. The following organizational attributes may contribute to an organization’s collaborative capacity include adaptability (Making Community Coalitions Work  1993) and resiliency (Innes and Booher 2003). Those that may undermine collaborative capacity include:

Minimization of collaborative activities; risk aversion and lack of trust among participating agencies (How to Engage Low-Literacy and Limited-English-Proficiency Populations in Transportation Decision making, 2006);

Belief that regulations are inflexible; reputation for being unreliable or untrustworthy;  conflicts in missions of internal divisions; difficulty managing expectations of other key players (Creighton 2008); and

Long-held, highly entrenched and polarized positions; resistance to change; lack of a visible champion for collaboration; and turf issues (Imperial 2005).

In the winter of 2010/2011, DuPraw began working with the US Forest Service (USFS), helping the agency develop systematic methods of fostering its collaborative capacity. USFS is recognizing the vital importance of collaborative capacity in effectively implementing numerous agency-wide strategic initiatives. Its new planning rule is a key driver, as implementation of the rule requires expanded use of collaboration; however, the agency recognizes that collaborative competency will also serve its efforts to respond to climate change, to integrate its resource inventory, monitoring, and assessment functions into a cohesive system, and many more efforts. The USFS reviewed the framework for collaborative capacity developed by the USACE team, and adapted it for its own use; they conceptualized their “system” for enabling collaborative capacity as having five components also, but a slightly different list, as follows: (1) Leadership; (2) Institutional Culture; (3) Relationships; (4) Policies and Practices for Implementing Them; and (5) Learning.Reviewing her work to date with USACE and USFS, DuPraw proposes a revised conceptual model for a generic system supporting collaborative capacity development that merges the frameworks used by these two agencies (see attached file for Figure 1). The generic model has six components – those found in the

9

USACE model plus “relationships.” Those involved in developing the USFS model felt very strongly that relationships were the “currency” of collaboration. Thus, in the updated generic model, relationships are at the center of the system, surrounded by the original five components from the USACE model. It appears to DuPraw that the other four components of the USFS model are already represented in the USACE model, albeit labeled and arrayed slightly differently.  It seems likely, and appropriate, that each organization working with a generic model will want to tailor it to meet their unique needs and to foster ownership in the tailored framework by those who need to use it.

January 20, 2012 WG Comments on Conceptual Framework The participants discussed what was intended by the “relationship” component and agreed to retitle this “networks and relationships” to reflect the importance of networks, connections and relationships in effective collaborative work and establishing capacity. In the Forest Service this was helpful in addressing the challenge of periodic leadership and management transitions. The participants agreed going forward there needs to be:

Further clarification of the relationships and distinctions between and among the various components. For example how do networks and relationships factor into political leadership, authority and empowerment? Or how do “networking and relationships” connect with institutional procedures (related to staff turnover, overlaps and cross training).

Ideally, each component should be capable of formulating guidance on meeting challenges with tested strategies that can be illustrated with examples.

In order to build collaborative capacity in an organization, is it necessary to focus on all or each of the 6 components and/or is there a sequence of steps/components for an agency or organization to consider in addressing and building capacity?

Guidance might be provided on how to assess the strengths and weaknesses of an organizations networks and relationships.

Collaborative capacity in terms of networks and relationships may be something to draw upon even after you transition to another organization or another part of the organization.

Consider how organizational learning fits in the concept of collaborative capacity. It was suggested it might fit within

10

each component. Bill Logue offered to circulate a recent Stanford study on the topic http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_challenge_of_organizational_learning

REFERENCES Anderson, Philip. 1999. Complexity Theory and Organization Science. Organization Science 10 (3).Bean, Martha, Larry Fisher, and Mike Eng. 2007. Assessment in Environmental and Public Policy Conflict Resolution: Emerging Theory, Patterns of Practice, and a Conceptual Framework. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 24 (4).Constantino, Cathy, and Christina Sickles Merchant. 1996. Designing Conflict Management Systems: A Guide to Crating Productive and Healthy Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Creighton, James. 2008. Institutional Barriers to Implementation of Collaborative Planning: Submitted to the Institute for Water Resources, US Army Corps of Engineers.Diamond, Louise, and John McDonald. 1996. Multi-Track Diplomacy: A Systems Approach to Peace. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.Foster-Fishman, Pennie G., Shelby L. Berkowitz, David W. Lounsbury, Stephanie Jacobson, and Nicole A. Allen. 2001. Building Collaborative Capacity in Community Coalitions: A Review and Integrative Framework. American Journal of Community Psychology 29 (2).Goldberg, Rachel M. 2008. Learning from Cross-Cultural Practitioners. In ACR Environment and Policy Section Conference: Nurturing Conflict Resolution Skills, Practices and Programs Amid Institutional Changes. Tucson, AZ.Hocevar, Susan Page, Gail Fann Thomas, and Erik Jansen. 2006. "Building CollaborativeCapacity: An Innovative Strategy for Homeland Security Preparedness." In Innovation Through Collaboration - Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams.  Vol. 12, 255-274.  Elsevier Ltd.  ISSN: 1572-0977/doi:10.1016/S1572-0977(06)12010-5.How to Engage Low-Literacy and Limited-English-Proficiency Populations in Transportation Decisionmaking. 2006. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.Imperial, Mark T. 2005. Using Collaboration as  Governance Strategy: Lessons from Six Watershed Management Programs. Administration & Society 37 (3).Imperial, Mark T., and Timothy Hennessey. 2000. Environmental Governance in Watersheds: The Role of Collaboration In 8th

11

Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP). Bloomington, IN.Innes, Judith, and David Booher. 2003. The Impact of Collaborative Planning on Governance Capacity. In Institute for Urban & Regional Development Working Paper Series. Berkeley: University of California.Jones, Robert M. 2005. Leadership and Public Learning. In Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict: New Institutions for Collaborative Planning, edited by J. T. Scholz and B. Stiftel. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Koontz, Tomas, Toddi Steelman, JoAnn Carmin, Katrina Smith Korfmacher, Cassandra Moseley, and Craig Thomas. 2004. Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government? Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2011. The State of Collaboration in the Corps: A FieldPerspective. Published by USACE Conflict Resolution & Public Participation Center, May, 2011 (2011-CPC-R-04).

III. COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY INITIATIVES  

First Cut – Analyzing Seven Examples of Collaborative Capacity

InitiativesJohn Stephens – March 27, 2012

From the March 8th draft of UNCG Collaborative Capacity Work Group + A seventh example, as listed below

List of Examples

1. US Army Corps of Engineers - Collaborative Capacity Assessment Initiative (Maria and Marci) ABBREV = USACE-

12

CollabCapacAssess

2. US Forest Service “Empowering Collaborative Stewardship” Project (Deb & Marci) ABBREV = USFS-CollabStwdshps

3. US Forest Service Sierra Cascades Dialog Group (Deb) ABBREV = USFS-SCDialogGrp

4. Massachusetts Department of Transportation Public Engagement Capacity Building (Bill Logue) ABBREV = MassDOT-PubEngCapacBldg

5. US Federal Highway Administration - TCAPP Transportation for Communities - Advancing Projects through Partnerships (Shari Schaftlein) ABBREV = USFHWA-TCAPP

6. Alberta Collaborative Governance Initiative (Chris Carlson) ABBREV = AlbertaCollabGov

7. California Emergency Management Interoperability Initiative (Adam Sutkus) ABBREV = CalifEmergMgtInteropInit

Member CommentsMarci Dupraw.

1.       Re: #1, collab capacity to do what, perhaps add leverage limited resources; expand available resources; ecosystem restoration; and natural resource management. Perhaps combine this section with #7?

2.       Re: Sections 3-4 on p. 2, I think these might be fruitful places to focus some discussion time on Monday’s call to futz with categories, and which items go where. (I’d put Adam’s new one under Section 3, but it has some elements of #4, too… food for thought re: the USFS point about internal/external strategies …) Also, going forward, I’m thinking you and I may end up working together on writing, yes? Would enjoy thinking / reflecting / writing with you on the underlying collab capacity building methods / strategies reflected in the examples.

3.        On Section 6, p. 3, the 2 entries refer to the same project. Combine.

4.       P. 4, what we need to make case more robust, seems like another good topic to discuss on Monday call. Seems to reflect some assumptions that might be good to unbundle / see if shared (e.g., why need for more examples of changed laws, changed funding designations, etc…. role of evaluation re: this paper, etc.)

13

5.       On p. 7., where you call for details / examples, did you see that there are 2 there already? “Climate’ and “inventory etc”? Can provide more detail, tho.

6.       Re: p. 8, the resources you have bulleted under “which resources are relevant,” are all relevant to collab cap building, but not products of our Empowering… project. The ones bulleted under “Outcomes” are from our project, and also the overall update of this website to make all those other resources readily accessible.

TWO MAIN POINTS OF COMPARISON AND CONTRAST

1. “Collaborative Capacity” to do What?From the seven examples, I see the following desired goals, final outcomes, and related operational values for why collaborative capacity is important.

A. Process Goals/Objectives1. Public engagement (authentic and effective)2. Collaborative problem solving3. Consensus-building4. Stakeholder negotiation5. Dispute/Conflict resolution6. Be inclusive and transparent7. Interagency and Intergovernmental partnering;

coordination

B. Results/Products

1. Integrating environment/ecological concerns2. Better decision-making3. Be accountable4. Strategic plan for multi-stakeholder group5. Improved interoperability of emergency communication6. New highway capacity7. Water resource planning and management8. Enact a bioregion “all lands” approach9. Address complex issues on a large, landscape scale

2. Answering the So what? Question: Kinds of Outcomes/ Achievements

(1)Political Leadership, Authority, and Empowerment

A. USACE – Action by Senior Leaders, January 2011

14

CPC directed to synch 7 recommendations with other USACE initiatives.

No new funds: Four recommendations are not yet being implemented as senior leaders decided that no new funds would be allocated to implement the recommendations not related to current Corps efforts.

One final recommendation was not appropriate/relevant.

B. Informing USFS decisions via the Regional Leadership Team and other staff of the Forest Service (USFS-CollabStwdshps)

C. Establishing/supporting key inter-agency and inter-sector organizations which now have facilitative leadership capacity (CalifEmergMgtInteropInit)

(2)Individual Knowledge, Skills and Abilities A. Improve Training (inform current course content and develop new courses,

such as the basics of facilitation and collaborative leadership - USACE-CollabCapacAssess).

B. Document “lessons learned”C. Identify best practicesD. Establish a Community of Practice, “to foster relationships, connect people

doing similar work, raise the profile of collaboration and public participation, and share best practices and lessons learned.

E. Facilitation/meeting management and strategic planning skills (CalifEmergMgtInteropInit)

F. Ensure USACE personnel can readily access facilitators and mediators to assist them with collaborative processes

(3)Time and Resources A) Specific “work tools”

Big, multi-faceted: USFHWA-TCAPP Narrower, but highly adaptable - Electronic collaboration tools to

maximize the benefit of collaboration when it must be done remotely - USFS-CollabStwdshps)

B) Reference/website/guidance materials A brief primer, entitled, “Collaboration: Getting Started, ” - USFS-

CollabStwdshps A FACA “Easy Button, ” - USFS-CollabStwdshps After-Action Review Tools - USFS-CollabStwdshps General resource website – collection of #10 and more - Partnership

Resource Center - http://www.fs.usda.gov/prc - USFS-CollabStwdshps Identify best practices

C) Case studies An initial draft map of FS-related collaboratives - USFS-

CollabStwdshps

15

Moving to develop a database USACE-CollabCapacAssessD) Establish a Community of Practice, “to foster relationships, connect people

doing similar work, raise the profile of collaboration and public participation, and share best practices and lessons learned.

E) Ensure USACE personnel can readily access facilitators and mediators to assist them with collaborative processes

(4)Institutional Procedures

A. Clarify the relationship and intersection of conflict resolution and public participation with two other communities of practice – Tribal Relations and Public Affairs USACE-CollabCapacAssess).

B. Local government protocols and agreements for joint planning, cooperation, dispute resolution and/or limit opportunities for conflict escalation (AlbertaCollabGov)

C. Identified key questions to be addressed through a science synthesis to support a Sierra Nevada bioregional assessment and forest plan revisions.

D. Specific, routinized ways for local-state agencies and other stakeholders to complete required reports to California legislature (CalifEmergMgtInteropInit)

(5)Organizational Culture

A. USACE field perspectives to CPC to help CPC improve collaborative capacity. (USACE-CollabCapacAssess)

(6)Networks and Relationships

A. Improved working relationships; new foundation of trust and mutual accountability (CalifEmergMgtInteropInit)

OTHER COMPARISONS

3. Government level – the lead or initiating agency?A. Federal – (USFS, USACE, USFHWA and co-sponsors: co-

sponsored by the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service and University of California

B. Region – USFS-SCDialogGrpC. Provincial agency – AlbertaCollabGovD. State – MassDOT-PubEngCapacBldg,

CalifEmergMgtInteropInit

4. Difference in doing “internal organization development” vs.

16

Conducting multi-stakeholder project to positively affect individual organizations’’ capabilities

A. Internal organization development USACE-CollabCapacAssessMassDOT-PubEngCapacBldgUSFHWA-TCAPP

B. Conducting (one or more) multi-stakeholder project/s which have a related/intended/secondary effect of improving the collaborative capacity of the stakeholder organizationsUSFS-SCDialogGrpUSFHWA-TCAPP

5. Service delivery changes or restructuringa) AlbertaCollabGov – “helping them do their business better”b) USFHWA-TCAPP – decision toolc) Unclear - USACE-CollabCapacAssess, USFS-SCDialogGrp,

CalifEmergMgtInteropInitd) Too early - MassDOT-PubEngCapacBldg

6. Agency-wide vs. subpart of worka) Agency Wide

USACE-CollabCapacAssessUSFHWA-TCAPP

USFS-CollabStwdshpsMassDOT-PubEngCapacBldg

b) Subpart of department/agencyUSFS-SCDialogGrp

7. Developing a “community of practice”a) USACE-CollabCapacAssess – “establish a Collaboration and

Public Participation Community of Practice.. and link with two other communities of practice – Tribal Relations and Public Affairs”

b) USFS-CollabStwdshps

In process – still learning, and to update:Pilot projects

a) Longfellow Bridge Task Force - recommendations for configurations of space for multi-modal (vehicles, public rail transit, pedestrian and cycling) use in renovation of the historic bridge connecting Boston and Cambridge - MassDOT-PubEngCapacBldg

17

b) TCAPP Decision Tool “Holistic” - One set is testing the tool holistically. Most of the pilots within this set are focused on how TCAPP addresses collaboration with stakeholders and partners.  

c) TCAPP Decision Tool and Integrated Ecological Framework - The second set is focused specifically on how TCAPP supports the integration of ecological planning and transportation decision making through the Integrated Ecological Framework (IEF).  

d) TCAPP Decision Tool: Additional pilot tests are planned

Making our “case data” more robustWe still need:

a) More subjects/government functions – some possibilities Information Technology – inter-agency (and inter-sector?) – Shannon

Tufts (UNC) and Dr. Theresa Pardo (Univ. of Albany) [John Stephens is doing outreach]

Health/Health Care/Medical Careb) More “completed work” – RE: cited as “early stages” - MassDOT-

PubEngCapacBldg, and USFS-SCDialogGrpc) More examples of changed procedures, rules or lawsd) Examples of changed funding designations – I did not see any breaking down

the silos of funding e) Outside evaluations – right now we are at the descriptive stage, will be get to

an evaluative stage given our timeframe of work? One example may yield evaluation in 2012: MassDOT/MOPC project team includes an external evaluator.

1.             US Army Corps of Engineers Collaborative Capacity Assessment Initiative,

Lead UNCG Member or other Practitioner:  Marci DuPraw & Maria Placht Organization/Sector: (Public, Private, NGO, combination): Public – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Context: Given the current environment of diminishing resources, increasing complexity, shifting priorities, and greater pressure to integrate across multiple disciplines, agencies, and jurisdictions, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) deems collaboration as critically important for achieving its mission in the 21st century. Solutions to today’s problems require reaching out to those with different authorities, perspectives, and resources to solve the various dimensions of these problems. In 2008, the Corps established a

18

Conflict Resolution and Public Participation Center of Expertise. The initial project of the Center was to understand the capacity of the Corps in areas relating to collaboration, conflict resolution, and public participation, so that Center staff would better grasp where the Corps’ strengths and weaknesses lay and thus where they should focus their efforts. The information collected during this baseline study gave the Center a starting point and a roadmap to guide its early initiatives. Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity initiative (aims/objectives): The “Collaborative Capacity Assessment Initiative,” began in the summer of 2008, to:·         Assess the Agency’s current capacity to collaborate with external stakeholders on water resources planning and management objectives;·         Elicit suggestions for capacity enhancements from the field; and·         Formulate priority recommendations for how to enhance the Corps’ collaborative capacity. The initiative defines “collaborate” as the multitude of ways the Corps seeks to involve and work constructively with external stakeholders.  This includes, but is not limited to, public participation, interagency and intergovernmental partnering, collaborative problem solving, consensus-building, and conflict resolution. This effort was led by the Corps’ Conflict-resolution & Public-participation Center (CPC) with assistance from CPC field representatives in each Corps Division and with support from SRA International, Inc. (SRA). The Initiative resulted in thirteen key recommendations, organized by what we determined to be the five components of an organizational framework that would effectively support, enable, and reward the use of collaboration(institutional procedures; leadership, authority, and empowerment; individual skill sets; time and resources; and organizational culture).. Using a systems approach to assess the Corps’ capacity to collaborate enabled the identification of the holistic changes needed to move the Corps toward a culture of collaboration. Process Steps Summary: The Collaborative Capacity Assessment Initiative was a two-year project that followed this process:

19

1.      Convene a diverse internal/external 13-person Review Group to ensure that the capacity assessment initiative meets USACE needs;2.   Collect input from members of the Review Group regarding the goals and objectives of this assessment, anticipated challenges to achieving success; existing assessment tools and feedback to develop a USACE-specific tool; and  proposed methods for analyzing and documenting results;3.      Develop a capacity assessment tool/survey that will assist the Corps in assessing its ability to conduct partnerships and to develop collaborative working relationships;4.      Use this tool to conduct a capacity assessment, which occurred via one-day, facilitated workshops in each of the eight Corps Divisions. In advance of each workshop, Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs from that Division completed the tool, as well as others identified as having particular experience and expertise in collaboration. This assessment targets the leaders of each Division because it is they who best exemplify the collaborative capacity of the Corps.  230 Corps staff at the Division and District level completed the tool and most of them participated in one of the eight workshops. During the workshops, participants presented barriers and enablers to successful collaboration via a series of case studies, discussed the survey results and implications, and recommended methods that Corps staff and Corps Headquarters could use to improve collaborative capacity.5.   Periodically elicit input from the Review Group regarding the proposed agenda for the Division workshops; the draft findings report; how this initiative is carried out, what is working well, and where mid-course corrections might be needed; and “next steps” once this assessment is complete.6.   Use the results of the survey and workshops to write a report identifying areas that need the Corps’ attention.  This report focused on steps the Corps can take to maintain collaborative strengths and enhance those areas that they would like to develop further, particularly for water resources planning and management. Current Status: In January, 2011, following the completion of the Initiative, CPC presented the 13 recommendations to Corps senior leaders in for their review and direction. Many of the recommendations were identified as overlapping with/relating to CPC or other Corps initiatives. CPC was directed to synch those recommendations with the leads for the other initiatives. Seven of the 13 recommendations fall into this category and are currently being implemented in part or in full. One recommendation has been implemented by CPC in

20

full, which is to “Ensure USACE personnel can readily access facilitators and mediators to assist them with collaborative processes.” Four recommendations are not yet being implemented as senior leaders decided that no new funds would be allocated to implement the recommendations not related to current Corps efforts. One final recommendation will not be implemented as Corps senior leaders decided it was not appropriate/relevant. Outcomes/Achievements: The outcomes of this Initiative are still unfolding. Achievements to-date:

1. Ensuring Corps personnel can readily access facilitators and mediators to assist them with collaborative processes. This was achieved in part through a roster of internal facilitators expanded during the workshop meetings by identifying existing Corps facilitators.

2. Establishing a Collaboration and Public Participation Community of Practice. This community serves to foster relationships, connect people doing similar work, raise the profile of collaboration and public participation as critical to achieving the Corps’ mission, and share best practices and lessons learned.

3. Providing field perspectives and information to CPC regarding the state of collaboration in the Corps and ideas for how CPC can improve this capacity. As a baseline study, the information collected during this effort was invaluable in terms of educating CPC staff of the needs of the field and highlighting areas important to focus on in future work. The information collected during these two years continues to inform and guide the direction of CPC every day, making their work more relevant and useful to the Corps.

4. Providing data and input to training courses – to both inform current course content and develop new courses, such as the basics of facilitation and collaborative leadership.

5. Collecting several conflict resolution or public participation case studies from each Corps Division as a starting place for developing a database to collect case studies and document lessons learned and best practices that will be developed by/shared with the Community of Practice and the broader Corps.

6. Improving understanding of the relationship and intersection of conflict resolution and public participation with two other communities of practice – Tribal Relations and Public Affairs. Relationships were fostered with these other Corps Communities of Practice that have promoted learning across

21

important parts of the Corps that interact the most with external stakeholders.

2. US Forest Service “Empowering Collaborative Stewardship” Project Lead UNCG Member or other Practitioner:  Marci DuPraw and Deb Whitall (subgroup members) & numerous other in-house and external collaboration “practitioners” (depending on how one defines that term) Organization/Sector: (Public, Private, NGO, combination): Combination Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Context: USFS is recognizing vital importance of collaborative capacity in effectively implementing numerous agency-wide strategic initiatives. New planning rule is a key driver, as its implementation calls for expanded use of collaboration; however, the agency recognizes that collaborative competency will also serve its efforts to respond to climate change, to integrate its resource inventory, monitoring, and assessment functions into a cohesive system, and many more efforts underway. Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity initiative (aims/objectives): To systematically foster the collaborative capacity of the US Forest Service, agency-wide. Process Steps Summary: The effort began in Winter of 2010/2011 with a convening assessment, which laid the groundwork for a 2-day workshop to frame up the effort. This workshop gave rise to 4 “Dimension Groups” (work groups each focusing on fostering a different dimension of collaborative capacity) and a Coordinating Committee. The boundaries of the Dimension Groups were porous, and their coordinators welcomed all comers, internal and external; however, the Coordinating Committee made a conscious decision to start somewhat low-key, given the staff capacity the agency was able to assign to the effort initially, so communication about the opportunity was mostly word-of-mouth until recently. In just 7 months (April – October, 2011), this network of stakeholders jointly

22

developed and implemented a Near-Term Strategy for Fostering the Civic and Citizen Engagement Capacity of the U.S. Forest Service. In November, 2011, they held a two-part webinar to share the work products they had developed to foster the agency’s collaborative capacity and to elicit input about next steps. Current Status: The Coordinating Committee was delighted with the enthusiasm engendered by the November webinar, and is about to reconvene to review the feedback received and work out the game plan for fostering a community of practice to support ongoing development of the agency’s collaborative capacity. Outcomes/Achievements: To date, this effort has resulted in the development and implementation of a Near-Term Strategy for Fostering the Civic and Citizen Engagement Capacity of the U.S. Forest Service. Work products that are now available to support the agency’s use of collaboration include:• A brief primer, entitled, “Collaboration: Getting Started”;• A FACA “Easy Button” (guidelines to demystify FACA so that it

doesn’t present an obstacle and staff know how to collaborate within its parameters);

• Materials to guide employee transitions in a manner that helps employees and communities sustain relationships and collaborative momentum;

• Electronic collaboration tools to maximize the benefit of collaboration when it must be done remotely;

• After-Action Review Tools (to enable the agency to learn from each collaborative effort they undertake);

• A newly-redesigned Partnership Resource Center website full of resources to support collaboration; and

• An initial draft map of FS-related collaboratives.

Which resources are relevant, RE: Outcomes/Achievements: National Partnership Office -

http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/partnership/index.shtml Partnership Resource Center –

http://www.fs.usda.gov/prc Highlights: What is a partnership? Introduction to Collaboration The Art of Collaboration - includes a quicklink to UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies Collaborative Examples

23

Collaborative Example: Upper Joseph Creek Landscape Scale Assessment

Collaborative Example: Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition Collaborative Example: Tongass Futures Roundtable Collaborative Example: New Mexico Biomass Evaluation Task Force

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) - http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLR/index.shtml

Wildfire prevention and management – collaboration – December 2006 - A Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities and the Environment - 10-Year Strategy Implementation Plan -

http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/plan/documents/10- yearstrategyfinal_dec2006.pdf

USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region - Collaborative Forest Restoration Program (CFRP) http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os3gjAwhwtDDw9_AI8zPwhQoY6BdkOyoCAPkATlA!/?ss=1103&navtype=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&cid=null&navid=091000000000000&pnavid=null&position=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&ttype=main&pname=Region%203-%20Home/cfrp/

3. Sierra Cascades Dialog Group Lead UNCG Member or other Practitioner:  Debra Whitall, PhD Social Scientist, Pacific Southwest Region, USDA Forest Service Organization/Sector: (Public, Private, NGO, combination): Combination Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Context: As an outgrowth of a 2010 conference co-sponsored by the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service and University of California on Pre- and Post Wildfire Forest Management for Restoration and Resiliency, stakeholders’ interest in furthering discussion on key topical areas led to the formation of a new collaborative working group in California: the Sierra Cascades Dialogue Group.The intent of the Sierra Cascades Dialogue is to hold regular conversations among engaged stakeholders on a range of issues across the Sierra Nevada and the Cascades. The term "stakeholder" refers to any individual or organization that has a direct interest in public lands. This would include the Forest Service as the convener. Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity initiative

24

(aims/objectives): The dialogue centers on the future of the Sierra Nevada and Cascades, with a focus on the national forests in this bioregion. Dialogues provide an opportunity for learning, shared meaning, aligned actions, mutual respect and understanding different perspectives.The goals of the dialogue are to:• Bring together public and private land managers to grapple with

an “all lands” approach to planning and conservation, beginning with ecological restoration.  In this case, “all lands” refers to all land within the Sierra Nevada bioregion irrespective of jurisdictional or ownership boundaries.

• Lay the foundation for Science Synthesis, Assessments, and Forest Plan Revisions.

• Develop stakeholder collaborative capacity to address challenging, complex issues on a large, landscape scale.

• Create shared responsibility and understanding.• Build relationships and trust among all stakeholders through

interest-based problem solving techniques.

Process Steps Summary: The Sierra Cascades Dialogue is based on best practices in the fields of public participation[12] and collaborative policy.  A professional facilitator with advanced training in the field of conflict analysis and resolution and an active mediation practice in natural resources planning facilitates the sessions. The facilitator works with senior Forest Service policy staff, including its social scientist, to design the sessions in cooperation with a twenty-member steering committee that is representative of all stakeholder interests. Current Status: The dialogue typically has about 140 participants representing a range of interest groups such as county governments, environmental organizations, fire safe councils, industry, land managers, including Forest Service staff and leadership, private landowners, recreation groups, rural communities, scientists, state government, tribes, water agencies, and youth. All dialogues are open to the public, and while participation shifts, a core group attends regularly. The organizers have committed to and actively recruit to realize age, cultural, geographic and socio-economic diversity among participants.  In addition to sending Sierra

25

Cascades Dialogue announcements to a large email list serve, a website (http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/SierraCascadesDialog/) contains announcements, background reading materials and summaries of each dialogue. Outcomes/Achievements: The dialogue is in its infant stages, yet is grappling with topics of significance to the Sierra Nevada bioregion, including ecological restoration, improving social and economic conditions in rural communities, ecosystem services and watershed health. In November 2010, 140 participants attended the first Sierra Cascade Dialogue Session on ecological restoration.  In its second session (February, 2011), the dialogue explored values, attitudes, and interests and the tie to interest-based problem solving.  The third session (October 2011) brought together local elected officials, nongovernmental and governmental organizations alike, social scientists, small business owners and industry representatives to discuss economic and social well-being within the context of a sustainable environment.  The most recent dialogue (December, 2011) brought together members of the research community and stakeholders to identify key questions to be addressed through a science synthesis to support a Sierra Nevada bioregional assessment and forest plan revisions.Agreements and understanding achieved through the Sierra Cascades Dialogue Group inform Forest Service decisions. Outcomes are shared with the Regional Leadership Team and other staff of the Forest Service (the Regional Leadership Team includes the Regional Forester, Deputy Regional Foresters, key regional leaders, and the Forest Supervisors). 4. Massachusetts Department of Transportation Public Engagement Capacity Building (Status 1/18/2012) Lead UNCG Member or other Practitioner:  Massachusetts Office of Public Collaboration, Susan Jeghelian, Executive Director, Loraine Della Porta Deputy Directory and Bill Logue, Senior Affiliate Organization/Sector: (Public, Private, NGO, combination): Public Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Context: Public engagement and collaborative capacity building knowledge, capacity and by using an inclusive and transparent internal process at MassDOT to effectively model interaction with the public and

26

organized stakeholder community to participate in decision making on transportation issues and effectively linking these to traditional/required decision making contexts in the transportation sector. Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity initiative (aims/objectives): The Massachusetts Office of Public Collaboration (MOPC) will assist the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) launch an agency-wide policy development and capacity building initiative to implement effective public engagement and collaboratively re-design the stakeholder engagement process for MassDOT and its Divisions across all of their programs and projects.  The long-term goal of this project is to build capacity and infrastructure for authentic and effective public engagement within MassDOT’s Divisions and programs to implement MassDOT’s commitment to engaged, transparent, and accountable government.  In the shorter term, MOPC will assist in developing and implementing specific stakeholder engagement processes for certain projects within the Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP) and other MassDOT initiatives.MOPC will assist with development of public engagement policies and protocols, internal capacity building, project implementation and coaching.  More specifically within the ABP, the work will address multi-modal use opportunities and improvements that are consistent with MassDOT Green Communities Act and will allow for the MOPC team to provide direct facilitation services on ABP public engagement processes and to assist with implementation and with mentoring MassDOT staff.MOPC’s role is to ensure that the collaborative structures and processes are developed and conducted in an unbiased environment suitable for discussion, deliberation and decision-making.  MOPC will also ensure compliance with best practices for collaborative governance and public engagement processes, including openness and transparency, impartiality and neutrality, and equity and inclusiveness. Process Steps Summary: For system design:1. Assessment of current systems, knowledge and awareness in

relation to best practices. Identification to challenges, internal and external barriers to collaboration around roles / responsibilities/ decision making / communication that impact public engagement.

2. Policy/protocol development including assessment criteria

27

and best practices for equitable and inclusive stakeholder engagement.

3. Internal implementation and design – orientation and training modules for roll out, identification of pilot projects.

4. Capacity Building Implementation – create training program and internal training team for Highway Division and agency-wide implementation.

5. Project Implementation – complete demonstration projects Current Status: Pilot collaborative process, Longfellow Bridge Task Force, successfully reach agreement on recommendations for inclusion in Environmental Assessment.Initiating system design/capacity building and identifying additional projects for pilot/coaching MassDOT staff. Outcomes/Achievements:  (to date) 1) Thirty-two member Longfellow Bridge Task Force composed of stakeholders and chaired by a community leader was convened by MassDOT. Met 9 times and arrived at recommendations for configurations of space for multi-modal (vehicles, public rail transit, pedestrian and cycling) use in renovation of the historic bridge connecting Boston and Cambridge.2)Grant and MassDOT funding received for system design. MOPC project team, two technical advisors and external evaluator selected Expected outcomes: MassDOT Public Engagement Policy and Protocol, MassDOT implementation team and capacity creation, several pilot projects. 5. TCAPP: Transportation for Communities - Advancing Projects through Partnerships

(TCAPP) can improve how practitioners develop, prioritize, and inform transportation plans and projects. TCAPP is a decision support tool, built from the experiences of transportation partners and stakeholders, which provides how-to information when it is most needed. (transportationforcommunities.com)

Lead UNCG Member or other Practitioner: Shari Schaftlein, FHWA, 202-366-5570shari.shaftlein@dot.gov

28

Organization/Sector: (Public, Private, NGO, combination):TCAPP was developed through the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2). TRB is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council—a private, nonprofit institution that is the principal operating agency of the National Academies in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies, including the modal administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation.[i] The material within TCAPP and the design and function of the website itself was developed with input from users including: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA); state departments of transportation (DOTs); metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs); resource agencies, such as the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service; and representatives of stakeholder organizations.

Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Context:Congress has charged the SHRP2 Capacity program to: “Develop approaches and tools for systematically integrating environmental, economic, and community requirements into the analysis, planning, and design of new highway capacity.”[ii]Transportation agencies today are charged with quicker delivery of the right transportation solutions.  To speed project delivery and have the flexibility to consider nontraditional solutions, the entire organization needs a systematic approach to collaboration, ensuring that the right people are engaged at the right time with the right information. The foundation of TCAPP is a Decision Guide that provides this systematic approach. It is delivered as a web-based resource that can be used as a troubleshooting guide or a road map to changing a business process.

The Decision Guide was developed from 23 in-depth, detailed case studies of innovative practices in collaborative transportation decision making; six workshops bringing together partners and stakeholders of the transportation decision making process; and an extensive process of review and refinement. Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Initiative (aims/objectives):

TCAPP provides a systematic approach for reaching collaborative decisions about increasing highway capacity that enhances the environment, stimulates the economy, and supports community

29

development.  Supporting collaboration in transportation decision making is a key principle of TCAPP; there are many features within the site that serve that goal:

·    The Decision Guide identifies 44 key decisions in four phases of transportation decision making: long-range transportation planning, corridor planning, programming, and environmental review.Key decisions are those that require review and approval from higher levels of authority or a consensus among diverse decision makers before the project can advance.  Policy level decision should effectively link the many steps of planning and project development. Many key decisions are common to most transportation agencies. Some are defined by law; others follow established practice.

·    Applications within TCAPP make collaboration more accessible by extracting the key information applicable to special topic areas and packaging it in smaller bites.  For example, there are Applications focused on visioning and transportation, the natural environment, and linking planning and environmental review. ·    Assessments are used to identify barriers to successful project and plan development – and find strategies for overcoming them.  Each assessment consists of a series of questions. Using user responses, TCAPP generates results indicating: (1) areas that currently represent the greatest challenge to the user, (2) strategies to address those challenges, and (3) recommendations for using TCAPP to help.  There are two assessments that specifically focus on collaboration: the Partner Collaboration Assessment and the Stakeholder Collaboration Assessment. ·    The Partner Portal within TCAPP answers the questions:

o   “Who makes transportation decisions?”o   “What do they care about?”o   “What are their roles?”

Information within the portal is structured so that each partner can quickly identify how TCAPP is useful to them while allowing each partner to understand the perspective and interests of others.·    The Stakeholder Portal provides information both to help stakeholders understand the transportation decision making process and their role, and to help practitioners understand stakeholder interests and incorporate those interests in transportation decision making.

30

Process Steps Summary:

Users can enter the tool through any of the paths described above. The information and tools within TCAPP can be used by project managers, practitioners, partners, or stakeholders and can be used individually or as a group.  The structure of the Decision Guide allows users to seek help from TCAPP at any point in the transportation decision making process.  TCAPP can be used to address a specific challenge area or to gain a broad understanding of collaboration in transportation decision making.

Current Status:

A robust Beta version of TCAPP is publicly available on the Internet (http://www.transportationforcommunities.com/shrpc01/) and is actively being used.  Enhancements to the site and integration of related research are ongoing.  

Outcomes/Achievements:

Two sets of pilot tests of TCAPP and integrated research are underway.  One set is testing the tool holistically.  Most of the pilots within this set are focused on how TCAPP addresses collaboration with stakeholders and partners.  The second set is focused specifically on how TCAPP supports the integration of ecological planning and transportation decision making through the Integrated Ecological Framework (IEF).  Additional pilot tests are planned.SHRP2 is kicking off the development of a marketing and communications plan, including high-level strategies and detailed tactics, which will help to:·    Build awareness of TCAPP and its bundled specialized content among the targeted audience(s).·    Promote increased use of the current beta test version of TCAPP and any improved versions that are available before the end of the SHRP 2 program in early 2015.·    Develop and test a set of key marketing and communications messages aimed at potential users of the TCAPP product.·    Develop and test a brand for TCAPP that resonates with potential users and helps communicate the product’s value.·    Build a toolbox of communications and market tactics and materials for marketing TCAPP and communicating its uses and value to transportation agencies and the targeted users.[iii]FHWA and other partners such as AASHTO are identifying transition plans for storage and maintenance of the SHRP2 research

31

products.  Information Technology staff and Program staff are evaluating options for integrating and linking these research products into existing websites, clearinghouses, and technical assistance efforts.

[i] http://www.trb.org/AboutTRB/AboutTRB.aspx[ii] http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/shrp2_pb_C01.pdf[iii] http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3234

6. Alberta Collaborative Governance Initiative http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta.ca/1488.cfm

Lead UNCG Member or other Practitioner:  Chris Carlson PCI

Organization/Sector: (Public, Private, NGO, combination): Public

Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Context:The Province of Alberta has a Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Municipal Dispute Resolution Services is a program within that Department.  They have launched a Collaborative Governance Initiative (CGI) to improve municipal business and inter-municipal relations.

Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Initiative (aims/objectives):The Collaborative Governance Initiative (CGI) is a proactive approach to improve municipal business and intermunicipal relations. The program gives municipal leaders an opportunity to look internally and intermunicipally at their organizations and find creative, locally-relevant ways to improve communication, better engage with internal and external stakeholders, and build better relationships. The program helps municipalities assess whether collaborative governance is appropriate and help convene the process and ensure all the prerequisites are in place. They also make grants available to municipalities to implement their collaborative efforts.

The CGI has two phases backed by grant money:1. Assessment phase: collaborative principles, processes, and

protocols are created by consensus. 2. Implementation phase: municipal organizations implement

the principles, processes, and protocols which arose from the assessment phase.

32

Through the CGI, the Municipal Dispute Resolution Services team helps municipalities assess whether collaborative governance is an appropriate fit and help convene the process and ensure all the prerequisites are in place.  Where appropriate, MDRS provides for a cost-sharing arrangement between municipalities and Alberta Municipal Affairs to cover part of the consultant's costs. Grant funding for the assessment phase can reach $50,000, while grant funds for the implementation phase can reach $30,000 on a matching basis. MDRS staff will assist municipalities in completing the necessary forms to access grant money.  Municipalities contract directly with consultants for their services. MDRS can provide a list of consultants with municipal and/or CGI experience.

Process Steps Summary:PCI worked with the program and provided them with information to assist them in the design and development of a training program on collaborative governance for municipal officials. They provided a review of existing collaborative leadership training programs and discussed possible objectives and curricular components for the training program. A pilot program was then prepared and piloted. Current Status: Ongoing

Outcomes/Achievements:

Municipalities across Alberta have developed collaboration protocols and agreements to guide their business activities in ways that limit opportunities for conflict escalation. A few examples are showcased below:

Municipalities big and small have had great success with the Collaborative Governance Initiative. A few sample collaboration protocols and agreements are listed below:

Town of Cochrane & Rocky View County - The RancheHouse Accord

MD of Foothills & Town of Okotoks - Joint Planning Agreement

Town of Peace River & MD of Peace No. 135 - Inter-municipal Cooperation Agreement

Northern Sunrise County & Town of Peace Rivero Capital Cost Sharing Agreemento Operational Cost Sharing Agreement

Municipalities have also realized the benefits of cooperation, as told

33

by these stories: Town of Canmore - A Vision for a kinder, gentler community

through Alternative Dispute Resolution Sturgeon County, City of Edmonton, City of St. Albert &

Town of Morinville - A Process for Resolving Intermunicipal Disputes

Town of Okotoks - Town Embraces Conflict

Other Resources – from 3/20/12 access to websiteFEATURE VIDEOS - CGI Video Testimonials - Municipal leaders from across Alberta have sat down with us to discuss their experiences with collaborative governance.  View the Youtube playlist! Resources

For more information on the CGI, download the printable brochure The Smarter Way to Build Win-Win Solutions in Municipal Government ( PDF )

http://medianew.gov.ab.ca:8080/ramgen/ma/mediation/ auma_040105.rm It's All About the Process (2006; 24 minutes) provides an inside look at how a controversy laden public meeting can be reframed into a productive encounter.  Building on a municipal council’s desire to construct a new municipal building, it shows how a neutral facilitator, using interest-based techniques, can guide and focus the discussion, reducing the animosity and gain public acceptance for a decision making process.

More video resources are available from the UNC School of Government. The School’s YouTube channel features three videos on the topic of collaboration and strategic partnerships, originally created for Rick Morse’s workshop for elected officials, Saving Money by Doing Business Together.

Want to create more collaborative processes for inter-municipal planning? Download the report: A Process for Resolving Intermunicipal Issues ( PDF )

7. California Emergency Management Interoperability Initiative (Adam Sutkus)

Lead UNCG Member or other Practitioner:

Adam Sutkus and other facilitator/mediators and subject matter experts at the Center for Collaborative Policy, California State University, Sacramento

34

Organization/Sector: (Public, Private, NGO, combination):

Combination—primarily local first responders and state agencies

Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Context:

The 2005—2010 effort involved a multi-year effort to bring together all of the local and state stakeholders involved with emergency communication policy and programs in California and facilitate the development of long term strategic plans for the state.

Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity initiative (aims/objectives):

To develop first an initial, then subsequent, annual reports to the legislature outlining the consensus view of California’s emergency communication local governments and state agency stakeholders regarding the development and improvement of interoperable communications capacity for the state.

Process Steps Summary:

California has two primary multi-party organizations tasked with addressing the state’s critical communications challenges for disasters and emergencies.

The California Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee (CalSIEC) http://www.calema.ca.gov/TechnologyOperations/Pages/calsiec.aspx and the Public Safety Radio Strategic Planning Committee (PSRSPC) http://rimsinland.oes.ca.gov/CTD/Public/psrspcweb.nsf/home?OpenForm represent the diverse local and state first responder community.

CCP assisted both organizations to develop statewide communications interoperability strategic plans that address current modernization challenges and federal mandates that have evolved since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and Gulf Coast hurricanes.

The planning effort allowed diverse first responder interests to address their specific communication needs in a coordinated manner that covers the full range of geographical, technical, operational and policy issues. Emergency responders at all levels in California had been struggling to integrate standard procedures in the state with new federal systems mandated as a result of recent national emergencies. Prior to facilitative, collaborative

35

involvement, the two main groups tasked with this coordination had been inactive and no formal mechanism was in place to address critical coordination needs and mandates for public safety. From 2005 to 2009, CCP assisted CalSIEC and PSRSPC with meeting planning design and facilitation; charter development and stakeholder liaison; strategic planning, and policy mediation for successful critical deliverables.

The integrated effort of coordinating these two primary organizations involved dozens of stakeholders and diverse organizations statewide and has allowed for key partners to successfully achieve consensus-based planning goals and several annual reports to the legislature outlining California’s interoperable communication needs.

Current Status:

In the spirit of developing internal capacity, in 2010, CCP transitioned the facilitative and project management of both Cal SIEC and PSRSPC back to the state office of emergency services, once both groups were coordinated and fully functioning for ongoing collaborative policy and program development work.

Outcomes/Achievements:

When this effort began in 2005, the PSRSPC was dysfunctional and on the verge of ineffectiveness and non-participation; the CalSIEC was not active in California at all. The state was required under statute to coordinate communication policy across agencies as well as prepare for upcoming federally mandated changes—all of which were not occurring due to stakeholder conflict, organizational confusion and policy inaction.

Through the design and facilitation of the effort, subsequent consensus-based strategic plans were produced for the California legislature and the two organizations—PSRSPC and CalSIEC—developed governance structures allowing for self-sustaining work internally, as well as with each other.

36

IV.    COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY LITERATURE REVIEW (March 27, 2012) Today, Tina and I discussed the Collaborative Capacity Literature Review, and tried to get some clarity around our task. As a reminder, you asked me to work with Tina to clarify key questions about updating the 2008 literature review and confirm that we can use the scope of that review to support our guidance document.We have some questions of clarification :

1.      What is the purpose of the guidance document?  And, how do we envision that it will be used?  For example, with the guidance document be a companion piece to the Collaborative Competencies Report (2011), one that tells agencies and organizations how to develop capacities in those competencies?

BJ: I hope it will be a companion to the UNCG Collaborative Competencies report and advise agencies and organizations on best practices in assessing and developing collaborative capacities.. I am hoping that one version of the final product will be a report akin to the IBM Center on Business and Government Reports (9000 words- with case e.g.s)

2.      Is there a plan for how the final product will be disseminated and used?

BJ: An IBM report disseminated through their network. 2. An online version 3. A possibly UNCG publication like the first report.

3.      Who is the target audience for the competencies document?

BJ: Agency and organization leaders.

4.      How will the “literature review” we are currently working on be used to inform or shape the guidance document? What is the purpose of doing this work? Will it be used to assist the authors of the guidance document, and/or the readers of the guidance

37

document (e.g., organizations and agencies)? We want to understand how the literature review will be sued so that we know how to shape and develop it.

BJ: a. Assist drafters in incorporating into their sections. b. Look for and extract "case examples" described in the literature. c. an appendix in the final version (probably online)

5.      Are the revisions Tina made on track? We want to be sure we are hitting the mark before we proceed.

Marci DuPraw: Mar 12.  Hi, Bob - on quick glance, Tina's edits seem great. I'll need to take a closer look. Question on my mind, though, is what is the right relationship of the Work Group lit review to the SRA/USACE one. Here, Tina is kind of editing a published doc (the latter being already "published" as an appendix to the USACE report). Wouldn't it be more "academically correct" to either cross-reference that doc and add new thinking in our fresh publication, or summarize the earlier lit review and explicitly articulate our new / fresh additions?  What's your thinking on this?

Mar 30  I'm hoping you will capture in the revised "package" going out this weekend my earlier feedback on the revised lit review, in the form of the question about the right relationship between our current writing project and the USACE lit review. It doesn't “feel" correct" to edit an already-published doc. Instead, I suggest we x-reference and/or summarize and build upon it.

January 20, 2012 WG Comments on CC Literature ReviewTina Nabatchi, in advance of the January 20 call, agreed to work on and compile and circulate an informal literature review building on and updating the 2008 literature review in the “State of Collaboration in the Corps” ACOE. http://uncgcollaborativecapacity.wikispaces.com/Collaborative+Capacity+Resource+Documents

[1] “The (collaborative governance) framework specifies a set of nested dimensions that encompass a larger system context, a collaborative governance regime, and its internal collaborative dynamics and actions that can generate impacts and adaptations across the systems. The framework provides a broad conceptual map for situating and exploring components of cross-boundary governance systems that range from policy or program-based intergovernmental cooperation to place-based regional collaboration with non-governmental stakeholders to public-private partnerships. The framework integrates knowledge about individual

38

incentives and barriers to collective action, collaborative social learning and conflict resolution processes, and institutional arrangements for cross- boundary collaboration.” An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance, by Kirk Emerson, Tina Nabatchi, Steve Balogh, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, First published online May 2, 2011 http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/05/02/jopart.mur011.abstract[2] See, http://www.policyconsensus.org/uncg/collaborativecompetencies.html[3]  See, The State of Collaboration in the Corps: A Field Perspective, Appendix B “Literature Review on Components of Collaborative Capacity in the Water Resources, Planning and Management Area, SRA, 2008[4] A capacity for collaboration enhances the probability of mission completion and goal achievement by leveraging dispersed and diverse networked resources. (Hansen & Nohria, 2004). Collaborative capacity, as it relates to interagency collaboration, resonates in the work of a number of academics and practitioners (e.g., Bardach, 1998; Huxham, 1996; Mowery, Oxley & Silverman, 1996; Seidman, 1970).[5][6] Ansell and Gash JPART 18:543–571 2008 [7] Daniel Mazmanian & Shui-Yan Tang, USC [8] Sources: numerous[9] Definitions from OPM. Posted at https://www.opm.gov/ses/recruitment/ecq.asp[10] “Interpersonal skills” is one of six “fundamental competencies” in the Office of Personnel Management’s Executive Core Qualifications for members of the Senior Executive Service. Posted at http://www.opm.gov/ses/recruitment/competencies.asp[11] Authors added “political” to category heading to provide further clarification.[12]For resources, see the International Association for Public Participation at http://www.iap2.org/

The State of Collaboration in the Corps: A Field PerspectiveAppendix B

DRAFT LITERATURE REVIEW ON COMPONENTS OF COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY IN THE WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ARENA

Prepared by SRA International, Inc. for the US Army Corps of Engineers’ Institute for Water Resources

39

November 14, 2008

The State of Collaboration in the Corps: A Field PerspectiveAppendix B

DRAFT LITERATURE REVIEW ON COMPONENTS OF COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY IN THE WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ARENA

Prepared by SRA International, Inc. for the US Army Corps of Engineers’ Institute for Water Resources

November 14, 2008

I. LITERATURE REVIEW ON COMPONENTS OF COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY IN THE WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT ARENAPrepared by SRA International, Inc. for the US Army Corps of Engineers’ Institute for Water Resources

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) seeks to assess its capacity to use collaborative strategies in carrying out its mission in the water resources planning and management arena. USACE’s mission is to provide quality, responsive engineering services to the federal government, which often entails controversial water resources planning and management initiatives. Water resource issues are often ripe for collaborative problem solving because they typically span multiple geographic and political boundaries and involve multiple agencies and other stakeholders with interdependent interests; high stakes; complex scientific and technical issues with high scientific uncertainty; and critical contributions of experts from a wide range of scientific disciplines. For this reason, and because USACE’s think tank and resource center, the Institute for Water Resources (IWR), has recently been officially designated as the Corps’ Center of Expertise (CX) on public participation, dispute resolution, and collaborative modeling approaches such as Shared Vision Planning (SVP), IWR is the Agency’s lead on this “Collaborative Capacity Development Initiative.”

This work comes after the Executive Branch and Corps leadership have issued numerous statements of support for the use of collaborative approaches for addressing environmental issues. Yet examinations of the Corps’ capacity to collaborate on such issues have found unevenness in the level of commitment and ability of Corps personnel to effectively involve external stakeholders and the public at large. This recognition has prompted USACE to undertake a variety of efforts to ensure that its personnel can effectively involve stakeholders and the public in future water projects where appropriate. At the same time, however, USACE leaders must also consider

40

several critical realities that affect the Corps’ ability to collaborate, including the challenge of working with agencies with conflicting authorities and missions, as well as limited funding.

This literature review covers a wide cross-section of resources on collaborative capacity, with a focus on its meaning in the context of water resources planning and management. For purposes of this literature review, we use the definition of “collaborative capacity” offered by Hocevar, Thomas and Jansen (2006) – “the ability of organizations to enter into, develop, and sustain interorganizational systems in pursuit of collective outcomes.”

We interpret this to include the ability of Corps personnel involved in water resources planning and management to:

Assess the dynamics involved in water resources planning and management challenges and controversies;

Make appropriate judgments about when and how to engage stakeholders to most constructively address the issue in question and achieve the USACE mission;

Implement those strategies effectively; and ␣ Reflect on the efficacy of those strategies, learn from both successes and failures, and adjust future issue analyses, judgments, and stakeholder involvement strategies accordingly.

The goal of USACE’s internal assessment is to highlight current strengths in the Corp’s collaborative capabilities, and identify areas that could be enhanced. USACE has hired SRA International, Inc., to develop a capacity assessment tool for use in this initiative, and the present literature review provides a foundation for the development of that tool. In this review, we define “collaborative capacity” and elucidate it components. We organized our findings using a “systems” framework. Thus, we discuss five interdependent categories of collaborative capacities important to USACE’s ability to plan and manage the nation’s water resources, as follows:

Political Leadership; Individual Knowledge, Skills and Abilities; Time and Resources; Institutional Procedures; and Organizational Culture.

This literature review concludes with a brief discussion of implications for the design of the Corps’ capacity assessment tool. Because collaborative capacity is a multi-layered phenomenon, research from very diverse sectors have direct bearing on the design of a collaborative capacity assessment instrument for USACE. While there is a large quantity of pertinent literature, there is no single definitive source. This makes the feedback of IWR and its Collaborative Capacity Development Initiative Review Group extremely important to “ground truth” the components of collaborative capacity that are most important to the Corps’ effectiveness in planning and managing the country’s increasingly precious water resources. Once we reach closure on the components of collaborative capacity to focus on in this assessment, SRA can conduct a brief follow-up analysis of the metrics used by others to measure those specific

41

capacities. This analysis will inform our next steps in finalizing the survey instrument for use in the IWR Collaborative Capacity Development Initiative.

II. INTRODUCTION.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) seeks to assess its capacity to use collaborative strategies in carrying out its mission in the water resources planning and management arena. USACE’s mission is to provide quality, responsive engineering services to the federal government, which often entails controversial water resources planning and management initiatives. Water resource issues are often ripe for collaborative problem solving because they typically span multiple geographic and political boundaries and involve multiple agencies and other stakeholders with interdependent interests; high stakes; complex scientific and technical issues with high scientific uncertainty; and critical contributions of experts from a wide range of scientific disciplines. For this reason, and because USACE’s think tank and resource center, the Institute for Water Resources (IWR), has recently been officially designated as the Corps’ Center of Expertise (CX) on public participation, dispute resolution, and collaborative modeling approaches such as Shared Vision Planning (SVP), IWR is the Agency’s lead on this “Collaborative Capacity Development Initiative.”

USACE’s assessment will highlight current strengths in the Corp’s capabilities, and identify areas that could be enhanced. USACE has hired SRA International, Inc., to develop the capacity assessment tool for use in this initiative, and the present literature review provides a foundation for the development of that tool.3 This literature review defines “collaborative capacity” and elucidates it components. We organized our findings using a “systems” framework. Thus, we discuss the components of collaborative capacity in five categories, reflecting the following five interdependent components of the system through which collaborative capacity operates within USACE: political leadership; individual knowledge, skills and abilities; time and resources; institutional procedures; and organizational culture. We conclude with a brief discussion of implications for the design of the Corps’ capacity assessment tool.

II. POLICY CONTEXT

For purposes of this literature review, we use the definition of “collaborative capacity” offered by Hocevar, Thomas and Jansen (2006) – “the ability of organizations to enter into, develop, and sustain interorganizational systems in pursuit of collective

3 Founded in 1978, SRA is dedicated to solving complex problems of global significance for government organizations serving the national security, civil government, and health care and public health markets. For this project, the SRA team includes: Marci DuPraw – the lead designer and implementer of the capacity assessment tool, MS in natural resource policy, economics and management; Tim McGonigle – PhD in industrial/organizational psychology; Luke Brooks-Shesler – MA in Industrial and Organizational Psychology; Jeff Knishkowy – systems design expert; Allison Remick – conflict and collaboration analyst; Samantha Levine – BS in environmental science and MS in conflict analysis and resolution.

42

outcomes.” Hocevar et al suggest that “a capacity for collaboration enhances the probability of mission completion by leveraging dispersed resources.” As pointed out by Hansen and Nohria (2004) in Hocevar, “the benefits of developing collaborative capabilities include cost savings through the transfer of smart practices, better decision making as a result of advice and information obtained from colleagues, enhanced capacity for collective action by dispersed units, and innovation through the cross-pollination of ideas and recombination of scarceresources.” The Executive Branch and Corps leadership have issued numerous statements of support for the use of collaborative approaches for addressing environmental issues. For example:

In 2004, President Bush signed an executive order introducing the “Cooperative Conservation” initiative to further promote the use of collaborative processes by federal agencies to manage a range of environmental issues.

In 2005, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) jointly issued a “Memorandum on Environmental Conflict Resolution.” The memo directed federal agencies to develop “strategies to prevent or reduce environmental conflicts and generate opportunities for constructive collaborative problem solving when appropriate,” to invest in such strategies, and to report on progress at least annually to the Director of OMB and the Chairman of the CEQ (President’s Office of Management and Budget and President’s Council on Environmental Quality, 2005).

According to USACE Circular 1105-2-409(6): “Collaborative planning is ... essential to the success of watershed scale planning” (Planning in a Collaborative Environment 2005).

The Corps’ 2004-2009 Civil Works strategic plan states that: “We are committed to collaborate through an ongoing dialogue with stakeholders to forge solutions to water problems that are economically viable, socially acceptable, and environmentally responsible – sustainable. ...Clearly, collaboration is essential to bring together the expertise on natural and human systems over the appropriate geographic area, knowledge of problems that exist, and the range of current and potential uses for water resources” (Department of the Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works) Strategic Plan: Fiscal Year 2004 - Fiscal Year 2009 2004).

The Campaign Plan of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Implementation Guidance, in which at least two of the four goals encompass directly relevant objectives (Department of the Army Corps of Engineers undated). More specifically:

Goal 2 is to "Deliver enduring and essential water resources solutions through collaboration with partners and stakeholders." Objective 2b of this goal is to "Implement collaborative approaches to effectively solve water resource problems.”

Goal 4 of the Campaign Plan is to “Build and cultivate a competent, disciplined, and resilient team equipped to deliver high quality solutions.” Objective 4b under this goal is to “Communicate strategically and transparently. This includes the objective of building

43

relationships both internally and externally, to foster collaborative partnerships with key stakeholders, and to inform and educate the public about USACE.”

Collaboration on environmental issues has occurred with increasing frequency over the past 40 years. However, it has truly proliferated since the 1990s, when the federal government passed laws authorizing agencies to engage in alternative dispute resolution and created the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution (Natural Resource Management: Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Participation in Collaborative Efforts to Reduce Conflicts and Improve Natural Resource Condition 2008).

Past examinations of the Corps’ capacity to collaborate on such matters have found unevenness in the level of commitment and ability of Corps personnel to effectively work with stakeholders and the public from district-to-district and project-to-project. Recognition of that reported unevenness in the Corps’ collaborative capacity has prompted USACE to undertake a variety of effort to ensure that its personnel can effectively relate to and involve stakeholders and the public in future collaborative projects involving water issues (An Organizational Assessment of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Regard to Public Involvement Practices and Challenges 1996; Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), 2008). The subject assessment of the Corps’ capacity to engage in collaborative capacity where such efforts would help accomplish the USACE mission is intended to lay a foundation for enhancing the Corps’ collaborative capacities, consistent with the abundant policy direction laid out above.

There are, however, critical realities that must be considered when exploring the notion of increasing the Corps’ involvement in collaborative processes. Federal agencies have different – and sometimes conflicting – missions that they are legally obligated to pursue. Thus, Structural barriers to collaboration must be acknowledged up front when the choice of strategies is being considered.

Conflict can be seen as a sign of a healthy democracy -- an indication that all issues are being surfaced, aired, and considered. Collaboration is not always the way to go. Sometimes – e.g., when a legal precedent is sought or when power imbalances are large – an issue may be better resolved in court. In addition, it is important to recognize that whenever the Corps pursues collaborative strategies, there is always the possibility that agreement will not be forthcoming. Some of the organizations involved may have interests that cannot be aligned with those of the Corps. It is possible – though not the usual course of events -- that there will ultimately be more conflict as a result of the effort to collaborate. In addition, although one hope that a decision reached collaboratively will be far less problematic and costly to implement, collaborative planning can be resource-intensive on the front-end. Thus, USACE personnel need to carefully assess when and where collaborative strategies are the best approach for advancing the Corps’ mission.Where used appropriately, collaborative solutions to complex water resources

44

planning and management challenges can be expected to yield broadly-supported decisions, realistic plans that can be implemented smoothly, and robust working relationships with stakeholders with whom the Corps needs to work long into the future.

III. APPROACH

Defining Collaborative Capacity Development. USACE is in the midst of considering recommendations to establish formal capacity development programs across its national and international sectors (Capacity Development White Paper (draft), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2008). In the above-referenced initiative, “capacity development” is defined as the “... building of human, institutional and infrastructure capacity to help societies develop secure, stable and sustainable economies, governments and other institutions through mentoring, training, education, and physical projects, the infusion of financial and other resources, and most importantly, the motivation and inspiration of people to improve their lives.” Innes and Booher (2003) suggest that a “governance system with capacity can learn, experiment, and adapt creatively to threats and opportunities. It is characterized by regular interaction among diverse players who solve problems or complete new tasks by working together.”

The movement toward “capacity development” is in part a function of growing interest in the practice of collaborative governance, which can be defined as “the processes and structures of public policy decision making and management that engage people constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a public purpose that could not otherwise be accomplished” (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012: 2). While collaboration has always existed, the understanding that collaboration is necessary to accomplish the work of government is becoming ever clearer. In turn, this has pushed scholars and practitioners to better understand how to generate, maintain, and promote collaborative capacity. We found several definitions of “collaborative capacity” in the literature. Goodman et al. (1998) define it to mean “the conditions needed for coalitions to promote effective collaboration” and build sustainable change. As mentioned earlier, Hocevar et al define collaborative capacity as “the ability of organizations to enter into, develop, and sustain interorganizational systems in pursuit of collective outcomes. In this literature review, we adopt the above definition of Hocevar et al, and interpret it to include the ability of Corps personnel involved in water resources planning and management to:

Assess site-specific and policy-level issues; Make appropriate judgments about when and how to engage stakeholders to

most constructively address the issue in question in the context of the USACE mission

Implement those strategies effectively; and Reflect on the efficacy of those strategies, learn from both successes and

failures,

45

and adjust future issue analyses, judgments, and stakeholder involvement strategies accordingly.

Defining a Systems Framework Through Which to Understand the Corps’ Collaborative Capacity. The SRA team briefly reviewed systems design literature to help us establish a systems framework through which to understand the components of collaborative capacity. Our assumption in doing so was that this would help us:

Design an assessment tool that would pinpoint parts of USACE’s collaborative capacity that currently function with excellence and parts that could be enhanced; and

Subsequently enable us to most efficiently strengthen and fine-tune that system for optimal results.

A system may be defined as a “set of interrelated components, acting with a common purpose, that exchanges information and energy with its environment” (Diamond and McDonald 1996). Diamond and McDonald further explain that systems are:

Made up of subsystems; Engage in activities that can leave the whole in a different state; Have means of self-regulation and adaptation that allow them to change over

time; A context in which they operate.

When it comes to large organizations, researchers have added the additional concept of complexity to describe entities that have several subsystems; in non-linear systems, such as federal agencies, changing one subsystem can drastically change the behavior of the whole system (Anderson 1999). In using a systems approach to analyzing organizations, each component, such as human resources and financial management, can be thought of as having a distinct role and culture, but each also relies on the other components to achieve overall organizational performance (Constantino and Merchant 1996). A systems analysis examines how well those subsystems “collectively interact in order to discover how to improve them” (Constantino and Merchant), rather than focusing on one element as a self-supporting entity. The strength and dependability of the systems in place can either support or hinder organizational goals, such as the use of collaboration by agency personnel.

The literature on collaborative processes encompasses several different systems frameworks that can be used for analyzing organizational collaborative capacity. For instance, in the context of developing capacity in community coalitions, Foster-Fishman et al (Foster- Fishman et al. 2001) examine core capacities at three levels:1. Individual level: a. Core skills and knowledge; b. Core attitudes motivation; c. Relational capacity of individual members.

2. Organizational level: a. Effective leadership;

46

b. Formalized procedures; c. Effective communication; d. Sufficient resources; e. Continuous improvement orientation.3. Programmatic level: a. Realistic goals; b. Unique and innovative; c. Ecologically valid.

Paul Mattessich et al reviewed the success factors for organizations involved in collaborations. They place the factors into six categories: (1) Environment; (2) Membership; (3) Process and structure; (4) Communications; (5) Purpose; and (6) Resources (Mattessich, Monsey, and Murray-Close 2001).

Beyerlein et al (2003) proposed a set of principles to characterize effective inter- organizational collaboration. Extrapolating from these principles, the following list of organizational components emerges: (1) Communication and education; (2) Organizational support (leadership, information-sharing); (3) Skills, knowledge and abilities (individual and organizational levels); (4) Personal accountability (culture); (5) Alignment of authority, information and decision-making; and (6) Organizational process.

In exploring success factors and barriers related to the capacities of organizations to engage in inter-organizational collaboration in the homeland security context, Hocevar, Thomas and Jansen (2006) relied up a systems framework developed by Galbraith (2002 in Hocevar, Thomas and Jansen 2006). Gailbraith’s framework is conceptualized as a five-pointed star, with the points representing the following system components: (1) Strategy; (2) Structure; (3) People; (4) Incentives; and (5) Lateral Mechanisms.

There is also a wealth of conceptual frameworks that are grounded in empirical study, For example, there are frameworks for: cross-sector collaboration (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006), collaborative planning (Bentrup 2001; Innes and Booher 1999; Selin and Chavez 1995), collaboration processes (Daniels and Walker 2001; Ring and Van de Ven 1994; Thomson and Perry 2006; Wood and Gray 1991), network management (Koppenjan and Klijn 2004; Milward and Provan 2000), collaborative public management (Agranoff and McGuire 2001; Cooper, Bryer, and Meek 2006; Leach 2006), environmental governance and conflict resolution (Agrawal and Lemos 2007; Emerson et al. 2009), and collaborative governance (Ansell and Gash 2008).

Following a review of these and other frameworks, Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh (2012) developed an integrative framework for collaborative governance. This integrative framework consists of three nested dimensions: the general system context, the collaborative governance regime (CGR), and its collaborative dynamics and actions. The general system context, which includes the numerous political, legal, socioeconomic, environmental and other influences that affect and are affected by the

47

CGR, generates opportunities and constraints and influences the dynamics of the collaboration at the outset and over time. From this system emerge several drivers of collaboration, including leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence, and uncertainty, which help initiate and set the direction for a CGR. The CGR is further shaped by 1) collaborative dynamics, including principled engagement, shared motivation, and capacity for joint action, and 2) collaborative actions, or the steps taken to implement the shared purpose of the CGR. These collaborative actions can lead to outcomes both within and external to the regime, as well as impacts, and adaptation (the transformation of a complex situation or issue) both within the system context and the CGR itself.

For purposes of this literature review, SRA distilled from the aforementioned resources and our own experiences the following list of five critical system components that translates well into the arena of federal organizations and provides a well-rounded portrait of the elements required for successful engagement in collaboration with external stakeholders:1. Political leadership / authority and empowerment to use collaboration where appropriate;2. Knowledge, skills, and abilities; 3. Time and resources; 4. Institutional procedures that reward use of these strategies; and 5. Organizational culture.

Sources. SRA conducted a comprehensive review of resources on collaborative capacity, with a particular focus on its meaning in the context of water resources planning and management. This review included several USACE documents that provide context for collaborative work, such as “USACE 2012”; “An Organizational Assessment of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Regard to Public Involvement Practices and Challenges (An Organizational Assessment of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Regard to Public Involvement Practices and Challenges 1996); and “When Partnering Doesn’t Work (Well)” (Creighton & Creighton undated).

In addition, this review included peer-reviewed academic journals; the Google Scholar database; the Policy Consensus Council; the literature on systems design; and materials from the SRA team members’ personal libraries on environmental collaboration. Due to the limited literature specifically on how to measure collaborative capacity in the water resources, we allowed ourselves a bit wider latitude in sources for this portion of the literature review. We found very relevant work going on in the homeland security arena (see, for example, Hocevar, Thomas, and Jansen 2006).

IV. FINDINGS: COMPONENTS OF COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY

In this section, we summarize what the available literature suggests are the specific components of collaborative capacity associated with each of the five system components discussed above: political leadership/authority and empowerment to use

48

collaboration where appropriate; knowledge, skills, and abilities; time and resources; institutional procedures; and organizational culture.A. Political leadership/authority and empowermentThe inter-organizational, inter-governmental and multi-disciplinary nature of collaborative processes involving water resources necessarily means that such efforts require strong political leadership (Jones 2005). As Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh (2012: 9) note, “the presence of an identified leader who is in a position to initiate and help secure resources and support for a CGR” is an “essential driver” of collaboration. Such a leader may be a deciding official, a member of a collaborating party, or located in a trusted boundary organization.

Those convening collaborative efforts must have: The authority to encourage this practice; Support from agency management to implement decisions; and The power to reprogram budgets to support development of collaborative

initiatives, monitoring and evaluation of collaborative processes.

Moreover, the leaders should possess “a commitment to collaborative problem solving, a willingness not to advocate for a particular solution, and exhibit impartiality with respect to the preferences of participants” (citing Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006; Selin and Chavez 1995). Moreover, the leaders should exhibit a willingness to absorb the high (and potentially constraining) transaction costs of initiating a collaborative effort, for example, by providing staffing, technologies, and other resources may help reinforce the endeavor (e.g., Schneider et al. 2003).

In addition, political support is also required to establish pilot or demonstration projects to educate and build support for collaboration, engage in cross-project and interagency training, and support interagency forums and workshops to build expertise and skills (Interagency Initiative to Foster Collaborative Problem Solving and Environmental Conflict Resolution, Briefing Report for Federal Department Leadership 2004 (revised 2005)). Capable leaders will be able to:

Emphasize the benefits of collaboration – not only benefits to the partnership as a whole, but to every individual and organization involved;

Identify leaders who can help the parties capture and name what they are doing; Promote an orientation towards continuous improvement (Foster-Fishman et al.).

Hocevar, Thomas, and Jansen (2006) suggest that it is important to the success of an inter- organizational collaboration that those initiating such a collaborative endeavor:

Experience a “felt need” to collaborate; Share a recognition for the benefits of collaboration; Are not experiencing rivalry with other participating organizations; Have leadership support and commitment; Have social capital (defined as interpersonal networks) at the top, mid-level, and

operating core of the organization; Recognize common goals or interdependence among participants in the

collaborative effort; and

49

Are able to structure the collaborative effort to accommodate interests of allparticipating organizations.

They also note that it is important that participants (not just convenors) have the authority and accountability to negotiate and make decisions on behalf of their respective organizations.

B. Knowledge, skills, and abilitiesWhile much of the collaboration literature examines formal organizations and established jurisdictions, collaborative endeavors are enacted by individuals. “Effective collaboration is deeply dependent upon the skills of officials and managers. Organizations may appear to collaborate, but in fact it is individuals representing organizations who collaborate (Frederickson, 2007:16). These individuals, and the relationships among these individuals are essential to getting things done in a collaborative endeavor (Huxham, 2000: 341; 2005: 74). Thus, a critical component of collaborative capacity is the specific knowledge, skills and abilities(KSAs) necessary for individuals to successfully and effectively engage in collaborative projects such as those involving water issues. (See table in Appendix C, which outlines and groups these KSAs into several overarching categories.)

A significant volume of research on collaborative KSAs has been conducted. For example, based on their extensive experience as facilitators and mediators of public disputes, as well as an extensive review of nine different published sources, Emerson and Smutko (2011) present a framework of five collaborative competencies that encompass ten specific skill sets which together constitute what the authors call “collaborative competence”. The five collaborative competencies and ten skills sets include:

1.Leadership and Management Competency (includes the skills set “strengthening collaborative leadership” and “planning, organization and managing for collaboration”);

2.Process Competency (includes the skills sets “communicating effectively”; “working in teams and facilitating groups”; and “negotiating agreement and managing conflict”);

3.Analytical Competency (includes the skills sets “applying analytical skills and strategic thinking” and “evaluation and adapting processes”);

4. Knowledge Management Competency (includes the skill set “integrating technical and scientific information” and “using information and communication technology”; and

5.Professional Accountability Competency (includes the skill set “maintaining personal integrity and professional ethics”).

In a survey of 417 county emergency managers across the U.S., McGuire and Silvia (2009, 2010) and Silvia and McGuire (2010) asked managers to compare the frequency of various leadership behaviors exhibited in their agencies with the frequency that they exhibit those same behaviors in their collaborative network. The

50

behaviors were divided into three categories: people-oriented (e.g., treating all network members as equals), task-oriented (e.g., coordinating the work of the network), and organization-oriented (e.g., identifying resources).They found that leaders in collaborative networks focus more on people-oriented behaviors and less on task-oriented behaviors when compared with traditional management or leadership.

Getha-Taylor (2008) reported the results of her study of collaborative competencies among public sector leaders in the United States. She found a mismatch between what human resource managers believe collaborative competencies to be and what exemplary collaborators demonstrate. The competencies of effective public sector collaborators found by Getha-Taylor include: values other people‘s perspectives on shared problems; demonstrates empathy, supports altruistic behavior via example; does not expect a return on investment; treats others as equals regardless of rank; shares resources; uses boundary-spanning language to find shared meaning; listens; develops close relationships; seeks win-win solutions; understands how to motivate the group; understands needs for power, affiliation, and achievement; demonstrates enthusiasm in connecting personal effort with larger outcomes; adapts his or her own strategies to what the group needs; defers to others‘ expertise when appropriate; uses collaborative conflict resolution; welcomes conflict for purpose of gaining new perspective; creates lines of sight; identifies outcomes that benefit all involved partners; identifies opportunities for collaboration that connect organizational goals with public service goals; connects collaborative effort with noble public sector outcomes; balances needs of his or her own organization with needs of others; has an inclusive achievement perspective; and is reluctant to take credit for collaborative outcomes.

Similarly, Williams (2002: 121) attempted to “build a framework of competency-based variables and factors that influence collaborative engagement, behavior and management.” Using a combination of surveys and in-depth interviews, Williams found that the important skill set of the effective collaborator includes: communicating, listening, understanding, and empathizing; influencing, negotiating, creating trust, and networking; resolving conflict; and managing complexity and interdependencies, as well as managing roles, accountabilities and motivations. Williams also discusses the importance of personality traits, mentioning the specific traits of being respectful, honest, open, tolerant, approachable, reliable, and sensitive.

Building on the research cited above, O’Leary, Choi, and Gerard (2012) surveyed 305 U.S. Senior Executive Service (SES) members to identify the skill sets of the successful collaborator. The respondents to their survey reported that collaborative competencies involve personal attributes and characteristics, interpersonal skills, group process skills, strategic leadership skills, and substantive and technical expertise.

The Office of Personnel Management’s Core Executive Qualifications (ECQ) for members of the Senior Executive Service provides the basis for our framework of essential KSAs. (see Appendix 1) Federal agencies tasked with implementing

51

Executive Order 13352 (Cooperative Conservation), including the Department of Defense, have similarly derived from the ECQ several individual competencies as being fundamental to the success of cooperative conservation (Response to memo on Executive Order 13352 2006). The first eight competencies listed in Table 1 are cited by several agencies (Departments of Defense, Interior and Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency) as the suite of cooperative cooperation competencies; the final four were added by the authors based on this literature review.

C. Time and Resources

The success of any collaborative effort depends in large part on the amount and type of resources dedicated to the project. Time is among the most basic, and yet most critical, of these resources. Collaborative projects are often long-term (multi-year) efforts that require organizations and individuals to participate in regular meetings; plan and budget for their participation; gather data; engage in research; monitor progress; implement decisions; and evaluate outcomes (Koontz et al. 2004). Hocevar et al suggest that inter-organizational collaborative endeavors are more likely to succeed if they have dedicated assets to support the collaboration, including people and resources. Useful resources may include funding, time, technical and logistical support; administrative and organizational assistance; requisite skills for analysis or implementation; and needed expertise, among others (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012). Power can also be viewed as a resource and, like other resources, is almost always distributed unevenly across participants (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006; Huxham and Vangen 2005). Furthermore, “resource disparities among participants are often highlighted in cross-cultural settings, where language, customs, and culture can present barriers to engagement” and “the perceived and real fairness, legitimacy, and efficacy of [collaborative arrangements] can depend on how well these resource differences are managed” (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012: 16; see also Milward and Provan 2000; Thomson and Perry 2006).

For the purposes of this work, the necessary resources can be divided into three categories: human, technical and financial (Koontz et al.).1.Human resources: These resources include personnel and the capabilities they bring to the collaboration. There are several individuals and types of staff members who are key to supporting collaborative projects. This list comes from multiple sources (including Saving Bays and Estuaries: A Primer for Establishing and Managing Estuary Projects 1989; Innes, Connick, and Booher 2007)

o Leader or director who is answerable and accountable to the stakeholder group as a whole;

o Program manager or staff director experienced in planning, operating and budgeting, and sensitive to stakeholder and public concerns;

o Experienced public participation specialists to serve as staff to stakeholder groups and liase with the public;

52

o Staff members experienced in the development and evaluation of management strategies and with in-depth understanding of major federal and state statutes and implementing regulations affecting water issues;

o Scientists knowledgeable about the scientific issues at hand; o Communications staff who can keep information flowing through the network;

o Political decision-makers who have the authority to enter into commitments,o Memoranda of Understanding, or other agreements that provide durability and

stability for collaborative efforts; ando Neutral facilitators selected by the parties.

2. Financial resources: This component primarily entails the funding that the collaboration receives, but also includes the needs to (Koontz et al, Saving Bays; Estuaries: A Primer for Establishing and Managing Estuary Projects; Eco-logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects 2006; Creighton 2008):

o Identify a way to pay for each action; o Engage in cost-sharing with other agencies/organizations; o Develop a financial strategy; o Access revenues for materials, staffing, facilities, travel/per diems manage theo flow of funds; o Recommend methods to oversee financial planning; o Identify new sources of funding, including:

Access authorities and public funding appropriation mechanisms at the local, regional, state and federal levels; and

Find funding matches through partnering with private sector or non- profit organizations;

o Support the participation of various stakeholders, some of whom may face financial constraints that would otherwise limit their participation;

o Implement funding procedures that support long-term objectives, as well as short short-term projects; and

o Avoid treating each budget year as an “exception.”

3. Technical resources: This component encompasses the capacities to: o Provide access to scientific information and expertise (Scholz and Stiftel,2005);

o Provide technical support to those who need assistance in presenting their views at problem-solving forums;

o Provide access to technical advisors who can interact with participants and answer questions;

o Commission new scientific research; o Support training opportunities (leadership, negotiation, partnering, etc.); and o Provide assistance in determining collaboration’s structure, guidelines.

D. Institutional Procedures

An entity’s internal processes and procedures may either support or impede its

53

capacity to participate in collaborative projects. Organizations need procedures that allow them to institutionalize policies, rules, norms and practices of collaboration, as well as create channels that support high levels of commitment to shared policies, resource allocation and cooperation (Imperial 2005). These organizational processes can strengthen an organization’s capacity to:

Collect public knowledge; Share that knowledge internally in a timely and efficient way; Communicate findings with citizens in a timely manner; Apply internal measures to gauge how effectively staff are using civic

engagement; Implement a system to seek out public knowledge; and Develop protocols to determine where, when and how to engage the public

(Standards of Excellence in Civic Engagement 2005).

Procedural and institutional arrangements encompass the range of process protocols and organizational structures necessary to manage repeated interactions over time. The conflict resolution literature indentifies dimensions such as agreements to mediate groundrules, operating protocols, decision rules, and so forth, but these are insufficient for longer term collaborations where informal norms must be supplemented with more formal institutional design factors such as charters, by-laws, rules, and regulations. In other words, larger, more complex, and long-lived collaborative networks require more explicit structures and protocols for the administration and management of work (Milward and Provan 2000, 2006).

These procedural and institutional arrangements must be defined at both the intra-organizational level (i.e., how a single group or organization will govern and manage itself in the collaborative initiative) and at the inter-organizational level (i.e., how the groups of organizations will govern and manage together in the CGR and integrate with external decision making authorities). In general, the internal authority structure of collaborative institutions tends to be less hierarchical and stable, and more complex and fluid, than those found in traditional bureaucracies (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006; Huxham and Vangen 2005). Such structures and protocols may vary by function, for example, taking on the shape of informational, developmental, outreach, or action networks (Agranoff and McGuire 2003), and by form, for example, being administered as a self-managing system, by a designated lead agency or agencies, or with the creation of a new governmental structure (Milward and Provan 2006).

The protocols that govern collaborative endeavors may be informal ‘‘norms of reciprocity’’ and/or more formal rules of network interactions (Thomson and Perry 2006). They may also distinguish interaction rules from arena rules in networks (Koppenjan and Klijn 2004). The common pool resource literature has contributed greatly to our understanding of the importance of rules, including constitutional rules, laying out the basic scope and authorities for joint effort, decision making rules, and operating procedures (Bingham 2009; Ostrom 1990).Before beginning a collaborative project, an organization should have the capacity to engage in an assessment presenting an impartial analysis of the problem that

54

collaboration would help resolve. This is vital to laying the groundwork for effective collaboration (Bean, Fisher, and Eng 2007). Such processes allow organizations to identify stakeholders and key issues, analyze the feasibility of moving forward, and design a work plan for proceeding. In addition, the capacity to conduct an assessment may result in stronger rapport between parties, illuminate multiple solutions, identify barriers to and opportunities for reaching agreement, and offer a reference point for analyzing progress.

Hocevar, Thomas, and Jansen (2006) suggest that the success of a collaborative initiative is enhanced if collaboration is a prerequisite for funding or other resources (e.g, built into a request for proposals that the groups are responding to together). They also suggest that collaborative initiatives are more likely to succeed if they have:

A formalized coordination committee or liaison roles; Formalized processes (e.g., meetings, agendas, deadlines); Role clarity; Joint training events for participants; Effective communication and information exchange mechanisms; and Technical interoperability between organizations.

Finally, Institutional procedures that are supportive of collaboration fall into the following categories:

Communication Procedures

o Allow individuals to speak directly with one another, rather than require them to follow rigid chains of command (Innes, Connick, and Booher), and workthrough a network, not a hierarchy;

o Coordinate the actions of other organizations; o Reduce information asymmetries by encouraging the formation of work groups,

task forces, and advisory committees; o Hold periodic national or regional conferences to share collaborative

experiences, identify further challenges, and learn lessons from others; and o Promote consistent terminology and data and performance measures across

agencies.

Procedures for Fostering External Awareness

o Support interaction with politicians and upper-level agency official; o Identify and evaluate legal and financial policy changes that would enhance

collaborative; and o Reconcile conflicting priorities among agencies or field offices, or national,

regional, and local concerns.

Procedures for Accessing Resources to Support Collaboration

55

o Pool organizational resources (funding, staff, equipment);o De-compress planning periods to make it easier to re-mobilize staff; o Support field staff interested in such efforts – i.e., assign staff according to their

skill; allow staff to become acquainted with a community to work better with local groups; provide flexibility for employees to work with these communities (Natural Resource Management: Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Participation in Collaborative Efforts to Reduce Conflicts and Improve Natural Resource Condition 2008);

o Allow organizations to absorb the transaction costs associated with organizing, supporting, or conducting collaborative activities at higher levels;

o Support plans to hire new people with collaborative skills; o Common databases, shared technical resources, integrated resource inventories and other forms of data synthesis (Imperial 2005);

o Offer training on negotiation, partnering, collaboration methods; and o Provide incentives to collaborate at the individual and organizational level

(Imperial and Hennessey 2000).

Evaluation Procedures o Support the creation of an action plan that identifies how progress will be

measured for each target; o Allow leaders to establish an evaluation system for each goal of the partnership

(Ferreyra and Beard 2007);o Direct collaborative managers to negotiate indicators for evaluation among

stakeholders; ando Establish agency-wide guidance, performance metrics, and monitoring of the use

of environmental conflict resolution to foster deeper understanding of the value of the practice.

Regarding USACE’s interactions with tribal governments, the capacity for collaboration may increase through policies that require leaders to take training on Corps-government relations and communication, trust-building and consultation with tribes, as well as programs that document interrelationships between project operations and Native American interests (An Organizational Assessment of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Regard to Public Involvement Practices and Challenges 1996).

E. Organizational Culture

The culture of an organization has the power to shape, guide and influence every activity in which it becomes involved. Culture affects an organization much like it does an individual, by creating worldviews, perceptions and meanings as well as ideas of what is right and wrong, useful or useless (Goldberg 2008). For that reason, culture constitutes a primary determinant of an organization’s success when it comes to intensive, multifaceted endeavors such as collaboration on water resource issues. An organization with a culture that devalues partnering, innovation, outreach, diversity, and skill-building, to name a few key ingredients in collaboration, will suffer in its efforts to engage in public participation. On the other hand, there are numerous aspects

56

of organizational culture that would support an entity’s work in this arena, including the related characteristics of: Flexibility:

o Readiness to adapt to changes and circumstances; o Avoid rigid bureaucratic structures; and o Set/reset expectations that make sense (Making Community Coalitions Worko 1993).

Resiliency: The ability to respond quickly to new conditions, events, opportunities and problems as needed (Innes and Booher 2003)

In addition to considering the elements of organizational culture that are supportive of collaboration, following is a list of attributes, activities and attitudes that, if embedded in an organization’s culture, could lead it to encounter difficulty in collaboration:

Minimization of collaborative activities; Risk aversion and lack of trust among participating agencies (How to Engage

Low-Literacy and Limited-English-Proficiency Populations in Transportation Decisionmaking 2006);

Belief that regulations are inflexible; Perception of others that organization is unreliable (Creighton 2008); Conflicting missions of agencies/engineers working with scientists; Difficulty managing local sponsors’ expectations; Mistrust in federally sponsored collaborative processes (Creighton 2008); Perceived failures of previous interagency cooperative efforts; Long-held, highly entrenched and polarized positions; Resistance to change; Lack of a visible champion for collaboration within the Corps; Limited view of the value of collaboration; and Existence of turf issues (Imperial 2005).

These issues speak to the need for an analysis of the systems context before embarking on a collaborative endeavor. In addition to organizational culture, collaboration evolves within a multilayered context of political, legal, socioeconomic, environmental, and other influences (Borrini-Feyerabend 1996). For example, scholars have identified several elements that may affect collaboration, including resource conditions in need of improving, increasing, or limiting (e.g., Ostrom 1990); policy and legal frameworks, including administrative, regulatory, or judicial (e.g., Bingham 2008); prior failure to address the issues through conventional channels and authorities (e.g., Bryson and Crosby 2008); political dynamics and power relations within communities and among/across levels of government (e.g., Ansell and Gash 2008); degree of connectedness within and across existing networks (e.g., Selin and Chavez 1995); historic levels of conflict among recognized interests and the resulting levels of trust and impact on working relationships (e.g., Ansell and Gash 2008; Radin 1996; Thomson and Perry 2006); and socioeconomic and cultural health and diversity (e.g., Sabatier et al. 2005).

57

IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT TOOL DESIGN

There does not seem to be any one work that is widely-recognized as the definitive reference on the components of collaborative capacity in the water resources planning and management arena. However, there is an abundance of literature that sheds light on such an inventory.

In the words of Hocevar, Thomas, and Jansen (2006), “Building collaborative capacity is a multi-faceted endeavor requiring systematic attention, resources, commitment, and opportunities for interaction.” Because collaborative capacity is a multi-layered phenomenon, research from very diverse sectors have direct bearing on the design of a collaborative capacity assessment instrument for USACE. This situation (a large quantity of pertinent literature, but no one definitive source) presents three challenges for the design of the USACE instrument:

1. Containing the literature review so that we can meet the practical deadlines and needs emanating from the USACE staff in the field, albeit in a scientifically grounded manner;2. Distilling the multitude of inputs into the most salient aspects of collaborative capacity to inventory within the USACE’s water resources planning and management personnel;3. “Rolling up” the multitude of inputs into a manageable number of variables, given informal advice from federal agency evaluators to keep the list of questions as short as possible to maximize response rate;

We see two alternatives for how we might move on from that point to develop the USACE / IWR assessment tool. We could either:

1.Complete a new and original assessment tool focused specifically on the water resources planning and management arena, based on the final SRA literature review, guidance from IWR, and discussions with the Review Group for this Collaborative Capacity Development initiative; or

2. Work in partnership with an existing science-based research initiative in the emergency preparedness arena that seems to be very closely aligned with the goals of the USACE / IWR Collaborative Capacity Development Initiative, in order to use what appears to be an existing, already-validated instrument for assessing inter- organizational collaborative capacity. We refer to the work of Hocevar, Thomas, and Jansen (2006), through the Naval Postgraduate School (School of Business and Policy). We believe that it is worth learning more about this initiative in coming weeks to assess the wisdom of these two alternative pathways.

These challenges and choices make the feedback of IWR and its Collaborative Capacity Development Initiative Review Group extremely important to “ground truth” the components of collaborative capacity that are most important to the Corps’ effectiveness in planning and managing the country’s increasingly precious water resources. Once we reach closure on the components of collaborative capacity to focus on in this assessment, SRA can conduct a brief follow-up analysis of the metrics used

58

by others to measure those specific capacities. This analysis will inform our next steps in finalizing the survey instrument for use in the IWR Collaborative Capacity Development Initiative.

REFERENCES

Anderson, Philip. 1999. Complexity Theory and Organization Science. Organization Science 10 (3).Bean, Martha, Larry Fisher, and Mike Eng. 2007. Assessment in Environmental and Public Policy Conflict Resolution: Emerging Theory, Patterns of Practice, and a Conceptual Framework. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 24 (4).Beyerlein, Michael, Sue Freedman, Craig McGee, and Linda Moran. 2003. The Ten Principles of Collaborative Organizations. Journal of Organizational Excellence 22 (2).Capacity Development White Paper (draft), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008.Constantino, Cathy, and Christina Sickles Merchant. 1996. Designing Conflict Management Systems: A Guide to Crating Productive and Healthy Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Creighton & Creighton, Inc. Undated. When Partnering Doesn't Work (Well): An Analysis of Less Successful Partnering Cases: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.Creighton, James. 2008. Institutional Barriers to Implementation of Collaborative Planning: Submitted to the Institute for Water Resources, US Army Corps of Engineers.Department of the Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works) Strategic Plan: Fiscal Year 2004 - Fiscal Year 2009. 2004. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.Department of the Army Corps of Engineers. Undated. 'Campaign Plan of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Implementation Guidance." Working Draft; Pre-Decisional, version 22 with goal 1 and 4 changes. POC: Marc Kodack. For internal USACE use only.Diamond, Louise, and John McDonald. 1996. Multi-Track Diplomacy: A Systems Approach to Peace. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.Eco-logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects. 2006. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.Ferreyra, Cecilia, and Phil Beard. 2007. Participatory evaluation of collaborative and integrated water management: Insights from the field Journal of Environmental Planning and Management 50 (2).Foster-Fishman, Pennie G., Shelby L. Berkowitz, David W. Lounsbury, Stephanie Jacobson, and Nicole A. Allen. 2001. Building Collaborative Capacity in Community Coalitions: A Review and Integrative Framework. American Journal of Community Psychology 29 (2).Galbraith, J.R., 2002. Designing Organizations: An Executive Briefing on Strategy, Structure and Process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Goldberg, Rachel M. 2008. Learning from Cross-Cultural Practitioners. In ACR Environment and Policy Section Conference: Nurturing Conflict Resolution Skills, Practices and Programs Amid Institutional Changes. Tucson, AZ.Goodman, Robert M., Marjorie A. Speers, Kenneth Mcleroy, Stephen Fawcett,

59

Michelle Kegler, Edith Parker, Steven Rathgeb Smith, Terrie D. Sterling, and Nina Wallerstein. 1998. Identifying and Defining the Dimensions of Community Capacity to Provide a Basis for Measurement Health Education & Behavior 25 (3).Hansen, M.T. and N. Nohria, 2004. How To Build Collaborative Advantage. In C. Huxham (Ed.), Creating Collaborative Advantage (pp. 1-18). London: Sage.Hocevar, Susan Page, Gail Fann Thomas, and Erik Jansen. 2006. "Building Collaborative Capacity: An Innovative Strategy for Homeland Security Preparedness." In Innovation Through Collaboration - Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams. Vol. 12, 255-274. Elsevier Ltd. ISSN: 1572-0977/doi:10.1016/S1572-0977(06)12010-5.How to Engage Low-Literacy and Limited-English-Proficiency Populations in Transportation Decisionmaking. 2006. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.Imperial, Mark T. 2005. Using Collaboration as Governance Strategy: Lessons from Six Watershed Management Programs. Administration & Society 37 (3).Imperial, Mark T., and Timothy Hennessey. 2000. Environmental Governance in Watersheds: The Role of Collaboration In 8th Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP). Bloomington, IN.Innes, Judith, and David Booher. 2003. The Impact of Collaborative Planning on Governance Capacity. In Institute for Urban & Regional Development Working Paper Series. Berkeley: University of California.Innes, Judith, Sarah Connick, and David Booher. 2007. Informality as a Planning Strategy. Journal of the American Planning Association 73 (2).Interagency Initiative to Foster Collaborative Problem Solving and Environmental Conflict Resolution, Briefing Report for Federal Department Leadership. 2004 (revised 2005). U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, Morris K. Udall Foundation.Jones, Robert M. 2005. Leadership and Public Learning. In Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict: New Institutions for Collaborative Planning, edited by J. T. Scholz and B. Stiftel. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Koontz, Tomas, Toddi Steelman, JoAnn Carmin, Katrina Smith Korfmacher, Cassandra Moseley, and Craig Thomas. 2004. Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government? Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Making Community Coalitions Work. 1993. Harwood Group, Pew Partnership for Civic Change.Mattessich, Paul, Barbara Monsey, and Marta Murray-Close. 2001. Collaboration: What Makes it Work. A Review of Research Literature on Factors Influencing Successful Collaboration. 2nd ed: Wilder Research Center.Natural Resource Management: Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Participation in Collaborative Efforts to Reduce Conflicts and Improve Natural Resource Condition. 2008. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.An Organizational Assessment of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Regard to Public Involvement Practices and Challenges. 1996. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), 2008. 2nd Annual Report (2007) on Environmental Conflict Resolution. Point of Contact: Mr. Chip Smith,

60

Assistant for Environment, Tribal, and Regulatory Affairs.Planning in a Collaborative Environment. 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.President's Office of Management and Budget and President's Council on Environmental Quality, 2005. "Memorandum on Environmental Conflict Resolution."Response to memo on Executive Order 13352. 2006. Washington, DC: Department of Defense.Saving Bays and Estuaries: A Primer for Establishing and Managing Estuary Projects. 1989. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.Scholz, John, and Bruce Stiftel, eds. 2005. Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict: New Institutions for Collaborative Planning. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Wood, Michael R., 2005. Standards of Excellence in Civic Engagement: How Public Agencies Can Learn from the Community, Use What They Learn, and Demonstrate that Public Knowledge Matters. The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation: Bethesda, MD.

61

Appendix 1[8]

Knowledge Skills and Abilities Supporting Collaborative Capacity

INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES

Partnering (Development of networks and alliances[9])

Process-related KSAs-            Uses democratic decision-making style-            Gather information effectively-            Promotes power sharing-            Develops shared vision among participants·   Helps participants agree on what partnering means in particular context·   Identifies each participant’s contribution-            Establishes a tracking and reporting

system to document progress-            Participates in external assessments and

self-assesses capacity

KSAs related to Structuring Partnerships-          Access to networks and connections-          Cultivates familiarity with the capabilities and requirements of other participants in the collaborative-          Builds effective coalition infrastructure, connections to existing community institutions, and inter-organizational leadership-          Identifies interests and capable representatives-          Clarifies boundaries of participating organizations

INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES

62

Partnering (continued) Attitudes and Values-            Maintains a diversity of stakeholders

and ideas to bring different perspectives and feed the tension that supports creativity, draw on a host of concepts when new approaches are needed

-            Sees diversity as positive-            Adheres to principles, including:

·         accountability·         openness·         informed commitment·         balanced, voluntary representation·         group autonomy·         informed process

-            Integrates different types of knowledge-            Recognizes and taps the different skills

of collaborations’ members-            Builds inclusive,  broad-based

involvement in collaborative efforts-            Trustworthy and able to trust-            Committed to collaborative initiative-            Self-motivated and persevering

Influencing/negotiating -          Tests “what ifs”-          Understands and incorporates needs and constraints of specific groups (tribes, populations with low/limited English proficiency)-          Serves as bridge between the group and their respective organizations-          Persuades others-          Builds consensus through give and take-          Gains cooperation from others to obtain information and accomplish goals.

63

INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES

Interpersonal skills[10] -          Models open communication-          Manages interactions between the parties-          Expresses empathy-          Alleviates stress-          Develops positive working climate-          Socializes new participants to norms, values and routines of collaborative processes-          Works effectively with those from backgrounds other than yours-          Understands how prejudices (of self and others) influence the development of understanding-          Improves understanding between cultures and economic group-          Treats others with courtesy, sensitivity, and respect-          Considers and responds appropriately to the needs and feelings of different people in different situations

Creativity and innovation -          Employs conflict as an engine of creativity-          Encourages efforts to develop new options for resolution-          Engages in technology transfer to share strengths-          Develops new insights into situations-          Questions conventional approaches-          Encourages new ideas and innovations-          Designs and implement new or cutting-edge programs/processes

64

INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCYRELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND

ABILITIES

External/political awareness[11] -          Understands and keeps up-to-date on local, national, and international policies and trends that affect the organization and shape stakeholders’ views-          Aware of the organization’s impact on the external environment.-          Understands power dynamics, and recognizes many different forms of power-          Recognizes when a project is in trouble-          Engages in risk analysis-          Engages in strategic thinking-          Manages political expectations-          Assesses the timing and scope of the collaboration-          Secures political support/commitment-          Taps the capacities of the community-          Uses guest speaker series, public meetings, and research to communicate scientific information to other stakeholders-          Considers constraints of the Federal Advisory Committee Act-          Engages in creative efforts to attract and secure political support-          Performs forward and backward mapping to identify potential constraints on joint action and identify possible supportive coalitions or sources of political conflict that would impede collaboration-          Promotes consistent levels of knowledge of environmental conflict resolution by senior leaders and project managers to foster strong situation awareness of the implications of emerging conflicts and the conditions that signal the need for environmental conflict resolution

65

INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES

Entrepreneurship -          Creates and builds effective programs-          Engages in creative efforts to attract and secure financial support-          Has knowledge of financial resources, funding opportunities and mechanisms-          Positions the organization for future success by identifying new opportunities-          Builds the organization by developing or improving products or services-          Takes calculated risks to accomplish organizational objectives

Problem solving -          Functions as a peer problem solver-          Manages rate of change and problem solving – regulate disequilibrium, discomfort, impatience and conflict-          Recognizes the value in integrating findings to achieve a more accurate and useful picture of the situation-          Identifies and analyzes problems-          Weighs relevance and accuracy of information-          Generate and evaluates alternative solutions, and makes recommendations

Conflict management -          Able to accurately assess conflict situation and determine most effective approach for addressing it-          Aware of broad range of possible conflict resolution approaches to draw upon

66

-          Able to match appropriate conflict resolution approach to specific conflict-          Able to work with others to design effective consensus-building process-          Understands how to build consensus among multiple parties-          Runs meetings effectively & efficiently

INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES

Conflict management (continued)

-          Reaches out to diverse stakeholders-          Builds agreement among affected stakeholders to engage in good faith-          Works to develop and agree on shared ground rules for participation-          Creates a game plan and group covenants-          Concentrates on relationships first-          Creates “jointly owned” knowledge-          Organizes “sidebars”  (committees or workgroups that address complex topics)-          Generates multiple problem definitions-          Creates options to resolve conflicts-          When necessary, acts from position of neutrality-          Talks about

67

“values”-          Acknowledges different kinds of knowledge-          Explores validity and accuracy with care-          Creates a “public learning” culture-          Is transparent about decision-making-          Pays attention to power-          Encourages creative tension and differences of opinions-          Anticipates and takes steps to prevent counter-productive confrontations-          Manages and resolves conflicts and disagreements in a constructive manner

Project management* -          Consider whether the resources exist to undertake collaborative activities-          Reviews staffing and budgeting requests-          Institutionalizes interpersonal relationships to make success less dependent on individuals and more on existing structure-          Effectively manages own time & that of team members to accomplish tasks by agreed-upon deadlines

68

INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES

Leadership* -          Inspires political and personal commitment and action-          Works to sustain hope and encourage participation in the consensus building process-          Creates a sense of ownership of the problem and underscore importance of work-          Encourages participants to play active and engaged roles in shaping public action-          Sets a holistic strategy-          Encourages full participation by senior-level executives-          Creates a more inclusive culture that allows for more effective communication-          Reconciles competing statutory objectives

Substantive knowledge* -          Knowledge of the water resource issues under discussion (empirical or experiential)-          Knowledge of legal and regulatory parameters and constraints related to issues under discussion-          Understanding of

69

institutional context in which participants are operating (e.g., how a particular agency works)-          Understanding of policy making processes related to issues under discussion-          Other relevant types of expertise (e.g. modeling, engineering, hydrology, ecology, aquatic biology)

INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES

Cultural Competency (this category added by authors)

-          Understands the cultural biases in the collaborative processes in use-          Develops new processes to reflect the diverse cultures of those involved-          Tailors methods and approaches to parties’ cultural norms-          Recognizes different ways of knowing, perceiving and behaving-          Engages in constant monitoring and adjustment throughout the course of the process to ensure that individuals of all backgrounds can equally participate-          Recognizes the cultural assumptions implicit in all aspects of collaboration (setting, process, participation, mindset, role of tradition, form of resolution)-          Recognizes when ideas from “other” cultures are being ignored, dismissed or disparaged-          Welcomes all modes of inquiry and analysis

70

-          Ensures that all types of information are available to everyone involved in a collaboration-          Helps build mutually framed questions with other stakeholders-          Engages in respectful questioning-          Recognizes and responds to specific modes of communication by Native American tribes-          Engages populations with low or limited English proficiency

71