From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making (2005)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

2.0 BASIC FOUNDATIONS Effective collaboration depends on numerous factors that together lead to success. This section describes characteristics of collaboration that are important points of departure for the subsequent introduction of tools that can be used to help officials assess the health of current collaborative efforts or to develop new collaborative partnerships. Defining Collaboration Many terms have been used to describe the process of working together to achieve a com- mon aim. In transportation, such terms as coordination, partnering, conflict resolution, and cooperation, to name just a few, are often used to characterize the efforts to develop joint actions. Although each has a specific meaning, these terms have often been used inter- changeably. In this handbook, collaboration is defined as follows: Col·lab´o·ra´tion: A purposeful process of working together to plan, to create, and to solve problems and/or manage activities Several of the terms in this definition are important in understanding the different aspects of collaboration for multimodal decision making. A purposeful . . . Successful collaboration must be serving a clearly articulated need. Thus, in the early stages of a collaborative effort, goals must be defined and agreed to. Not only does this keep sub- sequent activities targeted on the ultimate aim, but it provides a means of measuring progress toward this aim. . . . process of . . . Collaboration is, at its fundamental level, a process. This process usually involves understanding the need for collabo- ration, identifying common goals, putting in place common communication strategies, and using feedback mechanisms that allow for collaboration strategies to be evaluated and modified over time in order to better respond to changing decision-making demands. . . . working together to . . . Collaboration is a process of interaction among a group of individuals, groups, or organizations. However, collaboration is more than just interaction, it is a process of working toward commonly held goals. Thus, collaborative interaction implies working with others to achieve the goals articulated at the beginning of the process. 5

6. . . plan, create, and solve Collaboration can occur for a variety of reasons. Planning problems and/or manage for joint action, creating new approaches to commonly per- activities. ceived challenges, solving problems faced by more than one entity, and managing activities that involve the participation of several groups are four major reasons why collaborative efforts are undertaken. Figure 2 shows where collaboration fits on a scale of trust and mutual interaction. Many organizations, having very specific mandates and mission statements, often find themselves in the lower left of this figure and, accordingly, have difficulty participating effectively in col- laborative efforts. Isolation defines the lowest level of mutual trust and interaction in that there is little need and desire for any joint activity. For example, an organization’s mission might be so clear and targeted on so specific a function that its goals can be achieved with little involvement of others. Collaboration, on the other hand, is heavily dependent upon a sense of trust among the participants and provides great potential for achieving a better integrated and balanced outcome as it relates to transportation mobility. Note that Figure 2 suggests that these different types of interaction could overlap. Thus, a collaborative effort might include some level of coordinated service provision, or a competitive relationship might very well involve areas of cooperation (e.g., a joint venture for consultants). Table 1 illustrates the differences between a collaborative approach to decision making and one based on competition. Competition Cooperation Coordination Collaboration Low High High Low Trust of Others Level of interaction for mutual gain Isolation Figure 2: Collaboration on a Scale of Trust and Mutual Interaction

7“If we are to engage successfully in collaboration, we need to identify clearly what we are trying to accomplish at the end of the day.” —Gloria Jeff, Michigan Department of Transportation Collaboration Competition Top leaders support collaboration versus Top leaders foster competition Open communications versus Withholding of information Common language and terminology versus Different language and terminology designed to foster communications designed to guard competitive advantage Concern for mutual benefit and gain versus Focus on own interests Emphasis on trust among participants versus Distrust of others Respect for the interests of those versus Suspicion of the motives of others collaborating Easy access to other partners versus Little interaction with others Staff assigned to foster collaborative versus Staff assigned to encourage and attain activities competitive advantage Readiness to be helpful versus Use of threats and coercion Focus on joint problem solving versus Individual action to beat other competitors Institutional mechanisms for joint action versus Separate structures for individual action Reward staff who are successful in versus Reward staff who are able to beat collaborative activities the competition Possible evolutionary growth into versus Little chance for cooperative partnership full partnership on many issues Source: Based in part on M. Issenhart and M. Spangle, Collaborative Approaches to Resolving Conflict, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2000. Table 1: Characteristics of Collaborative versus Competitive Interaction

8Benefits of Collaboration What are the benefits of collaboration? The answer to this question relates directly to why collaboration occurs in the first place. The compendium of case studies on the CD-ROM enclosed with this handbook describes many efforts at collaboration. In general, this research found the following reasons for collaboration: • Responding to public needs that require multimodal or multijurisdictional strategies. • Utilizing new technologies to integrate system and traveler information that crosses modal and jurisdictional boundaries. • Coordinating organizational actions to maximize the effectiveness of infrastructure investment and transportation system operational efficiency. • Improving the probability of securing new funding for your region or organization (by expanding the constituency base for your proposal). • Sharing the costs of a program or policy initiative that a single organization or group could not afford. • Sharing the risks associated with a new undertaking, which, if attempted by a single organization or group, would not likely be pursued. • Preparing for both planned and unexpected events (such as freeway reconstruction and natural disasters) that could disrupt the transportation system. • Developing effective strategies to respond to or implement programs required by legislation that have as their focus multimodal, multijurisdictional, and/or multi- disciplinary solutions. The benefits of collaboration thus range from enhancing the image of transportation agen- cies to more effective program delivery, with increased cost effectiveness the primary bene- fit identified in the compendium case studies. The accompanying box, “Why Has Collabora- tion Occurred,” illustrates why collaborative efforts have been undertaken. A subsequent box lists some of the benefits of collaboration in today’s transportation world. “All the players in the collaboration must see that they each have something to gain. By perceiving such a gain, they will stay at the table when the process becomes difficult.” —Ysella Llort, Florida Department of Transportation

9Note: More detailed descriptions of these case studies can be found in the enclosed CD-ROM. Why has Collaboration Occurred? The following examples (described in more detail in the compendium found in the enclosed CD-ROM) illustrate the different reasons why collaborative efforts have been undertaken by various transportation agencies. Montgomery County, Maryland: The availability of both federal and state grant fund- ing served as one of many catalysts for the development of a multimodal operations center with centralized computer-aided bus dispatch and traffic signal control. The initial collabora- tion occurred between two divisions of the Montgomery County Department of Public Works and Transportation that had responsibilities for road operations and transit services. Growing demands to centralize transit operations, an established culture of innovation in traffic man- agement services, the availability of federal and state funding, and strong leadership from top agency management caused this collaboration to occur and to thrive up to the present. New York City: The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey in 1986 formed a vol- untary partnership of the key operating agencies in the New York region to act as a mecha- nism to exchange information on construction schedules. This original collaboration has now evolved into a regional information clearinghouse that disseminates system performance information to 16 member agencies and 100 affiliates, as well as serving as a test bed for the application of new technologies. The reasons for forming and the continuing evolution of TRANSCOM were primarily the mutual perception of a regional need (and avoidance of embarrassment when different agency construction projects conflicted) and the perception that information exchange, especially between transportation operators and emergency man- agement agencies, needed a common home. This was especially found to be true in the regional response to the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center, where TRANSCOM was credited with providing important coordination and communication capabilities. Houston, Texas: In 1993, the Texas DOT, the region’s transit authority, the City of Houston, and Harris County formed a partnership called TranStar to serve as a forum for planning, designing, and operating the region’s transportation system. All of the region’s operating and enforcement agencies are part of this collaboration. The catalysts for this effort included a strong transportation professional desire to coordinate transportation sys- tem management in Houston, the existence of a regional “champion” in the form of Hous- ton’s mayor, and the existence of a federal demonstration project that required more for- mal inter-organizational agreements as a prerequisite for receiving program funds. Oregon: In 2000, the Oregon DOT announced the creation of a statewide origin- destination public mode trip-planning information system. In developing this system, the DOT developed a collaborative planning structure with the state’s transit operators and with public health providers who viewed this program as a critical element in reaching out to those in need of health services. The initial catalyst for this effort came from middle-level staff members who thought such a coordinated approach to trip information would be beneficial to the citizens of Oregon.

10 Challenges to Successful Collaboration Although the benefits of collaboration are many, there are often important challenges that can hinder success. These challenges relate to such things as the characteristics of the organizations involved, the historical context of previous attempts at collabora- tive efforts, poor interpersonal relations among the major partici- pants, and insufficient dollar or personnel resources. The list in Table 2 provides a starting point for determining whether serious challenges could exist in efforts to collaborate with other groups or organizations. In many ways, because collabora- tion among organizations succeeds only because of investment of time and effort by individ- uals having a capacity to work together, these challenges can also be applied to collaborative efforts among individuals as well. The accompanying box, “Challenges to Collaboration” lists challenges within an agency and external to it. The benefits of collaboration in today’s transportation world are many and include . . . • Improving communication among entities involved in regional trans- portation system management and operations. • Ensuring more effective use of resources (dollars and labor) that relate to the desired outcomes (mobility, accessibility and environ- mental quality) of transportation system performance. • Reducing the costs to participants through sharing of resources. • Improving the quality of information to travelers on available services. • Laying the institutional foundation for new actors and stakeholders to participate in transportation decision making as the need arises (e.g., public health, emergency management, and enforcement agencies). • Reducing confusion and uncertainty associated with institutional responsibility for transportation system management. • Bridging the divide between federal and state transportation planning and local government land use and decision making. • Providing a foundation with one collaborative effort to build trust and enthusiasm for collaboration on subsequent projects.

11 Organizational Characteristics Organizational mission Narrowly defined roles can be major impediments to working with other organizations that do not share the same mission. For major transportation functions—transit operations, traffic operations, infrastructure planning, design and construction—agencies have different perceived missions, priorities, and legal requirements. Often these missions also reflect different jurisdictional responsibilities and roles that can hinder collaborative action. Organizational motivation Although a mission can often explain why an organization acts the way it does, organizational behavior can be motivated by a variety of factors. Often, and especially when both public agencies and private firms are involved with a collaborative undertaking, a lack of understanding of what motivates the behavior of others can hinder joint action. Standardized practice or standard operating procedures Organizational culture Organizational culture includes the concepts of mission, motivation, and standard practices, in addition to the history of interaction and the type of personnel (and their education and training) that are found within an organization. Thus, for example, an agency might be very hierarchically oriented with respect to decision making, where this decision making is driven by data and technical information. Organizational inertia In many cases, there is great reluctance to do anything different; in other words, there is often great comfort in the collective advantages of maintaining the status quo. It is thus often difficult to get an organizational commitment to work together, especially on an issue for which there is no track record of accomplishment or success. Professional mindset of dominant organizational groups The professional mindset of dominant groups in an organization can strongly influence the way an organization behaves and responds to challenges. Transportation is a complex field that fosters technical specialization, resulting in organizational fragmentation and the development of standardized approaches to solving problems. Language barriers The reliance on technical specialties in transportation often lends itself to the use of different vocabulary, acronyms, and terminology among the many different disciplines involved. For example, planners, traffic engineers, urban designers, developers, elected officials, and enforcement personnel often use different terms. This lack of a common language often creates great challenges in communicating key concepts. Uneven playing fields in the institutional environment In many cases, not all potential members of a collaboration have equal power or influence. Those having control of financial resources or having legitimacy due to legal mandate can often have greater say in collaborative efforts. Organizations often establish standard practices when facing situations that occur repeatedly. Thus, for example, most design manuals or transit operating guidelines provide standard responses to the types of decisions facing agency personnel. However, in many cases, the public today demands more tailored responses targeted at very specific needs, thus requiring a more flexible and creative response from the organizations involved. Table 2: Challenges to Successful Collaboration

12 Interpersonal Relationships Personal dynamics Collaboration depends primarily on establishing trust among the participants involved in the effort. Organizational barriers might stand in the way, but on a personal basis, collaboration can still occur within these boundaries as long as everyone trusts the other actors. In some cases, due to personalities or personal history, establishing such trust is a very difficult undertaking. Established behavior Some individuals have difficulty thinking beyond the “way it has been done for the past 40 years.” Through many years of experience, promotion guidelines, or training, they have come to believe that there is only one right way to do something and that any deviation is unacceptable. Resources Insufficient dollars This is often one of the most difficult challenges. Many collaborative undertakings require the sharing of costs and thus the need for participants to support financial efforts that are often at the fringe of their main mission. This is especially critical in the initial start-up phase of collaborative activities where, in the short term, financial resources are needed that can usually only come from limited budgets that are mostly allocated to other programs. Inadequate information or communication sharing Information and communication systems are an important resource in support of collaborative efforts. Not having the ability to communicate and exchange information because of incompatible information systems or due to inadequate organizational support of such systems can seriously degrade efforts to establish effective collaboration. Insufficient staff Many examples of collaboration require staff support to establish joint ownership of a particular initiative. This support might be nothing more than organizing and staffing meetings, or could be as significant as conducting detailed assessments of the technical and/or institutional feasibility of actions that are being considered. In either case, the assignment of adequate staff time is critical for overall success. Changing staff For collaborations that last for some time, it is likely that new individuals representing collaboration partners will join the effort, while others will leave. Each staff turnover could result in the need to educate the new participant in the goals of the effort, what has been done to date, and what has yet to be done. In preparation for staff changes, the collaboration management should engage in succession planning. Inadequate analysis tools Many collaborative efforts focus on transportation issues that include different modes of transportation and many different professional perspectives. This research found that few analysis capabilities exist to understand and assess multijurisdictional and multimodal strategies. Thus, for those collaborations that require a good analysis foundation for understanding the problem and needs, inadequate analysis capability could be a significant challenge.

Collaboration as a Process of Climbing a Ladder This research began with a goal of developing guidance for the transportation profession on how to form successful collaborations. As the case studies progressed, however, it became clear that there were two important contexts for collaboration that deserved attention in this handbook. First, for those situations where a collaboration currently exists, how can the effectiveness or health of this effort be assessed so that possible actions to improve this effectiveness can be identified? In this context, there is not necessarily any desire to take the collaboration to a new level of effort or complexity, but simply an answer to the question, “How can the collaboration be made more effective?” Second, many of the case studies illustrated the point that successful collaborations have often had, at their foundation, strong interpersonal and interorganizational relationships result- ing from previous collaborative efforts among the participants. Thus, for example, most of the regional transportation management centers in U.S. cities have evolved from much earlier efforts at collaboratively dealing simply with incidents on a region’s road system. This evolu- tion from incident management to regional transportation system management has usually fol- lowed several evolutionary steps that have collectively defined the relationships among the par- ticipants. Another example of the evolutionary nature of collaboration was found in the planning for natural disaster recovery. The initial efforts at examining how transportation services A survey of participants in special events planning identified the following challenges in conducting successful collaborative efforts: Challenges within the agency — Communication challenges (misinformation, untimely information) — Agency roles and awareness (lack of operations focus, lack of media involvement, isolationist staff attitudes) — Resource challenges (lack of personnel, equipment, training, funds; untimely mobilization of resources) — Administrative and commitment challenges (unsupportive organizational structure for multi- agency activities, lack of accountability, lack of coordination). Challenges external to the agency — Communication challenges (misinformation, untimely information) — Agency roles and awareness (lack of common goals, teamwork, trust, experience and training, proper oversight; indecision; and political pressure) — Resource challenges (lack of time, access, equipment, technical support, crowd control resources, and traffic control resources) — Administrative and commitment challenges (lack of administrative support, lack of coordination, unsupportive organizational structure for multi-agency activities, and dynamic organizational structures) Source: Carson and Bylsma, 2003 13

needed to work together in times of stress led many to ask, “Why can’t we work together in normal times as well?” This second context for collaboration leads to the need for guidance that focuses on the more dynamic nature of the evolution of collaborative efforts over time. That is, if an exist- ing collaboration wants to evolve to something more complex or involved, how can this be done? What needs to occur for the early stages of this evolution to serve as a strong founda- tion for subsequent evolutionary steps? This evolutionary nature of the collaboration process can be visualized in many differ- ent ways. Some in the research focus groups suggested that a “recipe” might be a good anal- ogy in that there are many different ingredients that need to be mixed together in just the right amounts to produce a successful collaboration. Still others suggested the use of a “con- struction crane” as the most appropriate image because the results of the collaboration case studies point to the very carefully constructed institutional relationships that served as the foundation of evolving collaborative efforts. However, given the nature of the successful progression from one level of collaboration to another as found in the case studies, a ladder was chosen as the best analogy. Successful collaboration often depends on taking a series of increasingly more difficult steps (moving up the ladder) to reach the desired result (reaching the rung of the ladder that satisfies your needs). Thus, for example, developing a metropolitan-wide traffic management control center that depends on the collaboration of many different transportation system oper- ators, emergency response organizations, and public safety agencies could start with an ini- tial step of simply understanding the goals and operating procedures of those involved and eventually lead to taking the final step of agreeing to joint funding and operating procedures. The intermediate efforts in between these two steps represent actions needed to build the trust and working relationships that serve as an important foundation for joint ownership and oper- ation of the control center. In many cases, the initial steps taken for one purpose can, many years later, serve as a foundation for collaborative efforts to meet other challenges. The ladder thus serves as a symbol of the evolutionary nature of collaboration, that is, you can start climbing the lad- der and remain at a certain collaborative level for some time, but then, given a need, start to climb again. Finally, just as when building a house, many different ladders are needed. One ladder will most likely not serve all of the possible collaborative needs of a state, region, or institutional structure. In some cases, given the nature of the challenge being faced, you might only need a small ladder; that is, there are not that many steps to be taken. Goals can be achieved, and thus barriers to collaborative efforts that are related to this specific problem overcome, with- out having to spend much time worrying about how to address more complicated issues. In other cases, the progression of necessary steps to achieving the goal requires the considera- tion of many different strategies and, most likely, increasingly more significant commitments of time and resources. Such collaboration usually builds upon initial, easier steps and pro- gresses to harder and potentially riskier steps. In this situation, a longer ladder is required. 14

15 The following sections present a method of assessment that examines both collaboration contexts mentioned above. The next section describes a self-assessment tool that can be used for those currently in a collaboration who want to know what steps can be taken to improve its overall effectiveness. The following section presents a methodology that identifies the actions that are necessary to move from one level of collaboration to another or, in the terms of this handbook, from one step of the collaboration ladder to the next. Further Words of Wisdom on Collaboration from Focus Group Participants • In the transportation sector, the overall availability of, and project eligibility for, gov- ernment funding programs can become an important challenge to a collaboration. • A major barrier to collaboration is often a reluctance to accept risks . . . This has been true for both public- and private-sector organizations. • Lack of leadership at critical times and loss of leadership after the process has been underway for a period of time can represent serious setbacks to successful collaboration. • Crises or the threat of crises can be an important motivator for putting in place collabo- rative frameworks that can serve as the foundation for further joint activities. • Higher rungs of the collaboration ladder (that is, more complicated efforts at collabo- ration), which represent more formalized interaction, can often be difficult to attain. In many cases, collaborative efforts work well until initiatives are taken to institution- alize relationships in formal agreements. Such agreements often commit agencies to certain courses of action, which are often reviewed for legal, institutional, and politi- cal consequences. • Fostering public awareness of a collaboration and of what it can produce is a good strategy to weather changes in leadership. If the public has come to expect collabora- tive undertakings from a group of organizations, it will be difficult for new leadership to disband this group. • The external environment for collaboration is often characterized by some players hav- ing more influence than others. Federal and state agencies, for example, often have funding, permit power, or some other authorizing influence. This unequal distribution of influence could even be ingrained in the proposed decision-making process for the collaboration, possibly resulting in the less-than-enthusiastic participation of those not in the decision-making circle.

16 Assessing an Existing Collaboration—How Steady Is the Collaboration’s Position on the Ladder? The case studies found in the Compendium illustrate four major characteristics of a col- laboration that become important evaluation criteria categories for the assessment of an exist- ing collaboration: • A successful collaboration must have a basic foundation in terms of the stated need, goals and resulting benefits; • There should be strong leadership from some members of the collaboration; • An effective process of collaboration must be in place in terms of participant respon- sibilities and the level of trust engendered; and • Organizational support should be provided by those participating in the collaboration. A self-assessment tool, referred to as a scorecard, can be used to evaluate the effectiveness or health of an existing collaboration. In order to demonstrate the use of this tool, Table 3 pre- sents such a scorecard as though it had been completed by a hypothetical collaboration. The questions were answered on a scale from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree.” After all the questions were answered, the numbers in each column were added and multiplied by the weight given at the bottom of that column. These column scores were added to get an overall score. The overall score indicates the assessment of the health of the collaboration, as described at the bottom of the score sheet. By identifying those questions receiving poor scores, those aspects of a collaboration that need more attention can be identified. As can be seen, the higher the score, the healthier the collaboration. (Note: A blank scorecard is provided in Appendix B.) In the case of the hypothetical collaboration assessed in Table 3, the scorecard has a score of 50, which places the health of the collaboration in the lowest category. This implies that the collaboration is experiencing serious problems and remedial action needs to be taken to increase the health of the collaboration. Officials would look especially at those questions with marks in the first two columns and adopt strategies to improve those scores. Strategies for doing this are discussed later in the handbook. Although this scorecard will most likely be filled out by an individual, you can also have all members of the collaboration use the scorecard, add the scores, and divide by the number of people filling out the scorecard to get an average score. In this case, because averages will tend to mask some of the variation in individual responses, it would be appropriate to identify the range of responses for individual questions to determine whether there is a wide variance in the degree to which a positive response was provided. Thus, although, the average response might show a positive feeling toward that particular aspect of the collaboration, a strongly neg- ative response from one or more members of the collaboration (and particularly if this response comes from influential or powerful participants) could foretell problems ahead. In this case, it would be to the benefit of the collaboration for the issue to be addressed.

17 Factors for a Healthy Collaboration Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Basic Foundations 1. The need for the collaboration has been clearly established X 2. The goal(s) for the collaboration have been clearly articulated and understood X 3. Intermediate and long-term achievement benchmarks have been established X 4. All the necessary partners are involved in accomplishing 1 to 3 above X 5. The benefits of participating in the collaboration are clear to each participating organization/group. X 6. This collaboration could very well lead to other collaborations in the future X Leadership 7. Leaders of the participating organizations clearly support the collaboration X 8. Leadership responsibilities have been spread fairly among the participants X 9. The leadership of the collaboration itself (e.g., who chairs meetings?) is clearly defined and accepted by others X 10. The collaboration would survive a change in agency representatives participating in the collaboration X The Process of Collaboration 11. Participant responsibilities have been clearly defined X 12. The right expertise is available as part of the collaboration X 13. Effective communication occurs among collaboration participants e.g., everyone is using a common language X 14. The level of trust among collaboration participants is high X 15. The collaboration is building lasting relationships among the participants X 16. There is effective feedback to the collaboration participants on the effects of previous decisions X Table 3: Self-Assessment Scorecard for Determining the Health of a Collaboration (continued on next page)

18 Factors for a Healthy Collaboration Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree Organizational Support 17. Participating organizations and/or groups have contributed their fair share X 18. Representatives of participating agencies/groups are being supported by their home organizations X 19. Individuals are being recognized or rewarded for their participation in the collaboration X 20. The resources available for the collaborative effort will be (or are) adequate to achieve the collaboration’s goals X A B C D E Number of Ratings in this Column 1 11 5 3 0 A 2 x B 3 x C 4 x D 5 x E Weighted Score 1 22 15 12 0 A + (2 x B) + (3 x C) + (4 x D) + ( 5 x E) Total Score 50 Score Range Collaboration Health Assessment ≤ 50 The collaboration is experiencing serious problems, and remedial action needs to be taken to increase the health of the collaboration. 51 ≤ Score ≤ 74 The collaboration is functioning, but there is room for improvement, especially if there is a desire for this collaborative experience to lead to further efforts. 50 75 ≤ Score ≤ 100 The collaboration is healthy and can serve as a strong foundation for further collaborative efforts in the future. Table 3 (continued)

19 The ranges in scores shown in Table 3 for classifying the health of the collaboration (that is, ≤ 50, 51 ≤ Score ≤ 74, and 75 ≤ Score ≤ 100) assume that all 20 questions are answered. This might not be possible for a col- laboration that is in the early stages of development or for a participant who has recently joined the effort. In such cases, the assessment should only include those questions that are relevant to the stage the collabora- tion is in. The score ranges in the health assessment checklist must be changed accordingly. Appendix C describes a methodology for doing this. If, after conducting the self-assessment exercise, none of the collaboration health criteria seem troubling, the members of the collaboration should be congratulated. The collaboration is on a very healthy foundation and should continue to prosper. However, if a number of troubling characteristics of the collaboration have been identified, steps need to be taken to modify either the basic foundation, leadership, process, or organizational support characteristics of the collaboration.