National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Chapter 3. The Evolution of Collaborative Relationships Moving Up the Ladder

« Previous: Chapter 2. Basic Foundations
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3. The Evolution of Collaborative Relationships Moving Up the Ladder." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13799.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3. The Evolution of Collaborative Relationships Moving Up the Ladder." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13799.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3. The Evolution of Collaborative Relationships Moving Up the Ladder." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13799.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3. The Evolution of Collaborative Relationships Moving Up the Ladder." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13799.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3. The Evolution of Collaborative Relationships Moving Up the Ladder." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13799.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3. The Evolution of Collaborative Relationships Moving Up the Ladder." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13799.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3. The Evolution of Collaborative Relationships Moving Up the Ladder." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13799.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3. The Evolution of Collaborative Relationships Moving Up the Ladder." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13799.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3. The Evolution of Collaborative Relationships Moving Up the Ladder." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13799.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3. The Evolution of Collaborative Relationships Moving Up the Ladder." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13799.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3. The Evolution of Collaborative Relationships Moving Up the Ladder." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13799.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3. The Evolution of Collaborative Relationships Moving Up the Ladder." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13799.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3. The Evolution of Collaborative Relationships Moving Up the Ladder." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13799.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3. The Evolution of Collaborative Relationships Moving Up the Ladder." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13799.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3. The Evolution of Collaborative Relationships Moving Up the Ladder." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13799.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3. The Evolution of Collaborative Relationships Moving Up the Ladder." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13799.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3. The Evolution of Collaborative Relationships Moving Up the Ladder." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13799.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3. The Evolution of Collaborative Relationships Moving Up the Ladder." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2005. From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13799.
×
Page 37

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.

! ! 20 3.0 THE EVOLUTION OF COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIPS— MOVING UP THE LADDER Collaboration is a journey of many steps. Some of these steps can be relatively straight- forward, while others require thoughtful consideration of the dynamics associated with the different organizations and groups involved. As noted earlier, of all the images that could rep- resent the changing nature of collaboration, a ladder was chosen as best illustrating the col- laboration journey. In particular, a ladder reflects movement toward a desired goal and, in many cases, movement to a higher level of achievement. Also, you do not have to climb to the top of a ladder to accomplish something; you only need to use the lower rungs to reach something that is not very high, that is, is not very challenging. Many different individuals representing a variety of organizations and groups will be part of a collaborative effort, thus the ladder of collaboration could be very crowded! However, as long as the ladder is well-grounded on firm principles of successful collaboration, it will not tip over. Successful collaborations do not have to be complex. In some cases, they can be achieved within a very short time frame or by taking a few steps on the ladder, depending on the goal. Observations in Advancing Collaborative Relationships Getting to the ladder could be the greatest challenge of all Entering into a collaboration usually implies something out of the ordinary. Most importantly, it means that there needs to be a really compelling sense of the benefit that will accrue with joint effort over and above that which could be attained through individual action. It represents activities that often require sharing of infor- mation and resources, with uncertainties associated with where your participation could lead you. There is thus a tendency on the part of many organizations to avoid the potential risks associated with collaborative under- takings. Getting organizations, groups, and/or individuals to the ladder of collaboration could be a significant challenge.

21 Taking the first steps up the ladder establishes the foundation for trust and communication necessary for later steps As experience is gained with the initial steps of collaboration, confidence grows in taking further steps. Not only do these first steps establish the ground rules for how this collaboration will evolve, but they also build the interpersonal relationships and trust that serve as the foundation for dif- ferent collaborations in the future. In addition, these first steps provide the common language of communication that will be used in future efforts. In many cases, you might start a collaboration already on the ladder Collaboration establishes important personal and organizational relation- ships that enable further collaborative efforts at a later time. For example, many of the case studies of regional traffic management found in the Com- pendium show that more recent collaborations have evolved from partner- ships created many years ago for coordinated freeway incident management. Additional collaborative programs could occur years later because of this earlier activity. The taller the ladder, the greater the challenge and, perhaps, the greater the risk The more steps that need to be taken to achieve a collaboration’s goals, the more commitment is often necessary from the participants. For example, developing a collaborative regional transportation management center (a pro- gram goal that would likely need a tall ladder) could very well require the real- location of budget, a relinquishing of some autonomy over certain aspects of transportation system operations, and the reassignment of staff.

22 Without care (and nurturing), you could fall off the ladder Building the foundation for a successful collaboration is not a one-time effort. With changes in participants (e.g., newly elected or appointed offi- cials) and the changing dynamics of a particular initiative (e.g., the sud- den elimination of a funding source or the emergence of unexpected proj- ect dollars), an apparently solid foundation of collaboration could fall apart. Falling off the ladder could, at a minimum, mean you will have to start over. In the worst case scenario, the fall could really hurt and cause the fallen participant to think twice about climbing the ladder again. Is moving up the ladder necessary for a collaboration to be successful? NO! Whatever climb is sufficient to satisfy the goals and requirements of a collaborative effort is only as far as you have to go. However, it is interesting to note that the higher on the ladder you go, the more the nature of the collaboration usually changes. In particular, moving up the ladder results in changes in the characteristics of the collaboration process, as shown in Figure 3. Figure 3: The Changing Characteristics of Collaboration Ad hoc arrangements to more structured and established rules of engagement to . . . Informal information sharing to standard approaches to interoperability of information systems to common control of information to . . . Little accountability to greater accountability, especially to external constituencies to . . . Individual funding decisions to jointly determined budgets to . . . Little risk to greater risk in terms of giving up authority and responsibility to . . . Simple strategies of implementation to more complex institutional strategies to . . . As you move up the ladder . . . You generally go (moving from bottom to top) from. . .

23 Step 1: Sizing up and making the ascent: Onward and upward! There are many reasons why an organization or group would participate in a collaborative effort. In some cases, the reason might be a perception of gain to the organization, while for others it might be mandated. Thus, one of the initial thought processes in considering the cre- ation of a collaboration is to identify the reasons why key participants would want to be part of the effort and, from a strategic perspective, developing incentives for their participation. Important questions include the following: • Who are the important potential participants in the collaboration? And which ones are critical for a successful outcome? • Why would these participants want to be part of a collaboration? What benefits would they likely experience participating in the collaboration? • How will these participants likely view the challenge being faced and the likely activ- ities of the collaborative effort? • Are there influential champions for the collaboration who can convince others to par- ticipate? Or, if you are such a champion, are there cochampions that can help you organize the collaboration? • If no champions exist, what incentives or rationale can be put in place to encourage the willing participation of key agencies and groups? Many of the examples of collaboration in this research showed the importance of a cham- pion in convincing others that the mutual gain from joint activity far outweighed any costs associated with the effort. Such a champion is particularly effective when he or she not only brings energy and excitement to the collaboration but also has authority to commit an organi- zation to a particular course of action. In the absence of a champion, other strategies will most likely be necessary to bring peo- ple to the ladder of collaboration. In many cases, the participation in a collaborative effort requires the approval of top management, even though top managers themselves will often not participate in day-to-day activities. Thus, one set of strategies would be targeted at top man- agers, convincing them that participating in the collaboration will benefit their agency. Another model of bringing people to the ladder is a bottom-up approach, that is, engaging key indi- viduals in the mid-levels of an organization in order to illustrate the benefits of such an effort. In this case, the creation of champions occurs among those who produce the product or ser- vice of the organization on a daily basis. The benefits of such collaboration are then commu- nicated to higher levels of the organization as a strategy for improving the effectiveness of the organization.

!! !! 24 The existence of a champion is an important factor in getting others to participate in a collaboration. Characteristics of these champions include individuals who . . . • Are willing to take risks • Hold a position of influence or leadership within an organization • Either through personality or position are able to get others to the ladder • Are able to see the big picture • Have thought through the reasons for the collaboration and are able to articulate them • Have developed a support structure for the collaboration before the first formal activities occur • Often bring resources to the collaboration • Are respected and trusted by other members of the collaboration Very little has been written on the strategies for getting people involved in a collabora- tion. Based on the results of this research and a review of relevant literature (primarily in the field of organization change), a range of strategies can be considered, each depending on an individual assessment of the potential risks and likelihood of success associated with each. These strategies are presented in Table 4 in increasing order of potency. The selection of one of these strategies should be done with careful consideration of how the potential participant will likely view it. In addition, Table 4 presents the strategies in increasing order of negotiation. Thus, the first set of strategies might be tried before proceed- ing to the latter strategies. For example, the Pressure strategy might not be used until the Rightness-of-Cause or Trusted Emissary strategies have been tried first. So, just as the ladder of collaboration represents an evolutionary taking of steps to reach higher levels of collabo- ration, the strategies for getting everyone to the ladder can also be viewed as a series of steps that range from simple persuasion to negotiated participation. A champion is particularly effective when he or she brings not only energy and excitement to the collaboration but also has authority to commit an organization to a particular course or action.

25 Strategy Logic It’s the right thing to do! (Rightness of Cause) You should participate because it is the right thing to do. The result of the collaboration will be so beneficial for the common good that it is something that all responsible organizations should do. You are too important! (Ego Appeal) You should participate because we cannot possibly succeed without you. What you bring to the collaboration is so essential to our overall success that we must have your participation. You want to do what? (Enlightened Self-Interest) You won’t be able to accomplish what you want without working with partners. The train is leaving! (Left Behind) This is going to be such an important milestone in the region’s history that you should be part of the effort…you need to get on board! Others want you to do it! (Pressure) You should participate because others (key opinion makers, the media, influential policy makers, peers) want you to. (This, of course, suggests that a conscious effort is organized to apply pressure) Your peer says it is the right thing to do! (Trusted Emissary) You should participate because a peer you trust (e.g., another state DOT or transit agency) has participated in a similar activity and has found great success. (This strategy is even more effective if the peer visits the individual you are trying to convince) Let’s work this out. (Facilitation) A third-party facilitator manages an information exchange or decision-making forum where the benefits of participation are identified and conveyed in simple yet forceful terms. What do you want? (Package Deal) You will certainly benefit from participating in this collaboration. In particular, what is it you want from this collaboration? You will… (Thou Shalt…) You will participate…end of story. (This strategy, of course, assumes that someone has the authority to order participation in the collaboration). Based in part on Meyer and Lloyd, “Strategic Approach to Transportation Project Implementation: The Boston Auto-Restricted Zone,” Transportation Policy and Decision- Making, 2: 335-349, Nijhoff Publishers, 1984. Table 4: Strategies to Get People to the Ladder of Collaboration

!! 26 “How do you get people to the table? It involves trust, a champion, and a matter of substantial importance to each of those parties.” —George Scheuernstuhl, Denver Regional Council of Governments Step 2: Scaling the first rungs: Identifying and acknowledging common purpose, motivation, and needs The second step in the model of the evolution of collaboration represents a consciousness- raising effort to define a common purpose for the collaboration, understand the motivation and constraints of the participants, and identify the needs that these participants have in partici- pating in an effective manner. Important questions to ask include the following: • What is the purpose of the collaboration? Has it been clearly stated? • How will progress be measured? Will this definition of progress be acceptable to those participating in the collaboration? • Are there communication barriers to be overcome among the participants in the col- laboration (the first sign of this is a tendency to speak in acronyms)? Do those in the collaboration need to agree on a common set of terms? • How will success (or failure) affect each participant? Which of the participants will benefit the most from success or be hurt the most from failure? • What will each participant need in terms of resources and mutual support to partici- pate effectively in the collaboration? • What does each participant bring to the collaboration? Is this contribution sufficient to achieve the desired goals? • Do participants trust one another? If not, what is the best way to establish trust among the participants? Although long-standing organizational and personality conflicts and uneven playing fields can weaken the initial steps in developing a collaboration, every effort must be made to develop an honest and open relationship among the participants as early as possible.

In many ways this step represents the process of building the interpersonal relationships and trust that are critical to successful collaboration. Expectations must relate to the institu- tional reality that the participants are in. This learning process is especially critical when par- ticipants come to the collaboration from dramatically different backgrounds and motivational contexts (e.g., participants from both government agencies and private firms). Are the results from Step 2 sufficient to meet the needs of your collabora- tive effort? If so, proceed to Step 10; if not, proceed to Step 3. Step 3: Establishing a firm footing: Ground rules and a decision-making framework The third step establishes the framework for how the collaboration is going to operate, who will be making decisions, and how these decisions will be made. The ground rules for col- laboration could vary significantly depending on the context of the challenge being faced. For example, if agencies are facing a very specific target date to accomplish some objective—such as the opening of an Olympic Games, a major national convention, a funding grant deadline, or the beginning of a major reconstruction project on a critical transportation facility—then the time frame for the collaboration becomes very clear. With such a specific deadline, Step 3 becomes a critical step in the collaboration process, as well as somewhat easier to achieve. A sense of urgency in accomplishing the goals of the collaboration creates a catalyst for coming to agreement on the ground rules and on the process of decision making. In a deadline-specific situation where agreement cannot be reached, it is often common to appeal to higher level decision makers to make the decision for the collaboration. “For effective collaboration, you need to define partner roles and responsibilities. This was essential in our collaboration for MetroRapid so that it was clear the transit agency would not be taking over the roads and the road agency would not be taking over transit operations.” —Jim de la Loza, Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority Perhaps the most challenging situation for this step is when there is no deadline or sense of urgency associated with proposed joint action. In such a case, efforts must be made to develop by consensus the ground rules that will be followed. The best strategy for doing this is for the champion(s) of the collaboration to develop a proposed set of rules that can be the focus of initial discussions. These ground rules should be sensitive to the needs and motiva- tions of those who are participating but should clearly lay out a process that will result in achievement. 27

28 The worst possible scenario is to develop a process of interaction and decision making that does not lead to specific intermediate and long-term achievement of the goals of the collaboration. Important questions to ask in this step include the following: • Who should take the lead in developing a proposed set of ground rules and a decision- making framework? Does this decision-making framework need to be formal or can it, for the time being, survive on an ad hoc basis? • How will the needs and concerns of all the participants be reflected in the established process of decision making? • What are the key intermediate and long-term results that are desired from the collab- oration, and how does the decision-making framework lead to these results? • What are the individual decision-making roles for those involved in the collaboration? (For example, in some cases, decision-making authority is given to an executive com- mittee, with other participants having an advisory role) • Do those participating in the collaboration have the authority to commit their agencies or groups to carrying out jointly made decisions? • Who at the higher levels of authority might have to be called upon to make decisions in the event of an impasse; that is, who will be the arbiters? This step is a critical benchmark for establishing the credibility of the collaboration process. Given that many participants could come to the collaboration with their own objec- tives, expectations, and agenda, the dynamics of how Step 3 is accomplished will critically affect the willingness of participation. In some cases, one agency having ultimate responsi- bility for the subject of the collaboration might take the lead (e.g., a state transportation agency with responsibility for a freeway network in the case of a regional traffic management cen- ter). In others, a shared leadership role might be adopted where it is not clear that one agency has the ultimate authority (e.g., a cochairing by a transit agency and a city transportation department for special events planning). In still others, the leadership of the collaboration might be rotated among a subset of the leading participants to reflect the important contribu- tions that each could make. “For collaboration to be successful, we need to define clearly what problem we are trying to solve, and who the ultimate customer is that benefits.” —Sally Thomas, County Supervisor, Abermarle County, Virginia

29 Many of the examples examined in this research showed that this step is often undertaken on an ad hoc basis. This is especially true when the collaboration includes the participation of local governments or agencies. Local governments often do not work in hierarchically structured committees and task forces and usually have only one or two individuals who can participate in a collaborative effort. Are the results from Step 3 sufficient to meet the needs of your collabora- tive effort? If so, proceed to Step10; if not, proceed to Step 4. Step 4: Stepping up to the challenge: Determining who will assume responsibility for collaborative activities Establishing a decision-making framework is often not enough to support a collaborative effort. In many cases, analysis must be conducted to better understand the technical nature of the challenge being faced. The development of a jointly funded work program is an important step for getting collaboration participants to “buy into” the process that is going to be fol- lowed. These work activities should be closely tied to the types of decisions that will have to be made by the collaboration partners. One of the important issues that must be addressed at this step is the assignment of staff responsibilities for required tasks. The most successful examples of collaboration in the Com- pendium have dedicated staff resources to the collaboration, either permanently or on a short- term assignment basis. However, just adding such responsibilities to existing staff work loads might overwhelm the very best staff members in an organization. So, not only will it be nec- essary to determine which participant of the collaboration will undertake or support various technical activities but also careful thought needs to be given to which staff member(s) in each participant’s organization will be involved with the collaboration. Important questions to ask in this step include the following: • What are the critical decisions that will have to be made over the life of the collabo- ration? What type of information will be necessary to support these decisions? • What staff, financial, and information resources are available to make the work pro- gram successful? What resources are needed? • Is the work program consistent with the cultural norms of the organizations that are participating? If not, where will opposition to the work program likely arise? • Who should have what responsibilities for individual work tasks? • What is the time frame for accomplishing different parts of the work program? Is this time frame consistent with the timing of the challenge being faced (e.g., an Olympics transportation program in place by the opening of the Games)?

30 The work program provides the technical basis and justification for the decisions that are made later. Although this analysis is undertaken in a proactive way, that is, it informs deci- sions, it can provide the justification for why certain decisions were made in some potentially controversial cases. For example, in preparing for a special event, some of the services pro- vided might not have turned out to be as successful as expected. If attention is brought to this fact by the media or by top management, having analysis results that show why the decision was made can be important for answering these questions. Are the results from Step 4 sufficient to meet the needs of your collabora- tive effort? If so, proceed to Step 10; if not, proceed to Step 5. Step 5: Establishing communication capabilities among those on the ladder: Sharing information As the adage says, information is power. One of the defining characteristics of the struc- ture of most transportation systems in the United States is the separate responsibility given dif- ferent agencies. Some organizations are responsible for the road system, while others are responsible for transit, emergency response, and human resource services. Each of these organizations collects data and produces information on the performance of the transportation system or of their services. This step on the ladder of collaboration establishes a protocol for sharing this information, thus leading to an information database that can be used by any of the partnering organizations for conducting their own activities. Important questions to ask in this step include the following: • Who are the target audiences for decision-making or operations information? • What are the critical pieces of information that need to be obtained for effective coordination? • Who collects and analyzes the data that form the foundation of this information? • Are consistent formats, terminology, definitions, and technology used in order to foster information sharing? If not, how will such a consistent framework be developed? • Who will take responsibility for the overall communications system? Will it be cen- tralized? Or will it be coordinated centrally but distributed among collaboration participants? • How will the purchase and on-going costs of shared information and communications systems be funded? What type of updating strategy (and thus sharing of costs) will be necessary to ensure that these systems stay up to date? This information sharing is particularly important for collaborations that target improved customer-oriented transportation services as their ultimate goal. Thus, for example, the coor- dination of transit schedules or the creation of a compatible regional fare system requires that participating agencies provide information about how their own systems are used by the travel-

31 ing public. Or, a regional traffic management system that is dependent on the participation of those agencies that own and operate individual elements of this system will most likely require a sharing of information on how each element is used by travelers and the types of actions practiced by the responsible agency. Are the results from Step 5 sufficient to meet the needs of your collabora- tive effort? If so, proceed to Step 10; if not, proceed to Step 6. Step 6: Starting to climb higher: Coordinating activities of partner organizations, with each organization using its own standard procedures This step on the ladder of collaboration requires potentially significant changes in the oper- ations of individual organizations. This level of collaboration implies that, although organiza- tions will modify their own operations or operating procedures in order to accomplish the goals of the collaboration, the organizations still retain control over the procedures themselves. Thus, for example, transit scheduling will still remain the purview of the transit agency, but new schedules that provide for improved transfers with other travel modes might be developed in response to strategies adopted by a collaboration. Or, coordinated agency preparation for spe- cial events might require changing traffic management patterns, transit service frequencies and routing, and the assignment of enforcement personnel, all done in response to strategies iden- tified by a collaboration but remaining under the control of the respective agencies. Important questions to ask in this step include the following: • Is the decision-making structure established early in the collaboration still sufficient to provide the level of coordination needed at this step on the ladder? If not, what changes should be made? • What components of the outcome of the collaboration need to be coordinated? Who is responsible for each component? • What do each of the collaboration partners have to give up (if anything) to provide for coordinated activities? • Are the standard procedures of partner organizations as they relate to collaboration goals sufficient to ensure coordinated outcomes? • How visible will the ultimate outcomes be to the public? Does such visibility create addi- tional pressure on the collaboration for overall success or make the chance of failure less acceptable?

32 • What feedback mechanisms will be used to make sure coordination is occurring and that the activities will lead to the desired outcomes? • What decision-making structure is in place to make changes to the coordination strat- egy if it is not producing the desired outcome? The effectiveness of this step is directly linked to the ability of partner organizations to use or modify their own procedures to participate in the coordination activities. In some cases, this might be difficult, either because of long-standing historical precedents, or because of the perceived disruption in agency activities. If such is the case and the participation of the orga- nization is critical to the overall success of the collaboration, then the collaboration leadership needs to develop a strategy to convince this organization of the benefits of such participation. Are the results from Step 6 sufficient to meet the needs of your collaborative effort? If so, proceed to Step 10; if not, proceed to Step 7. Step 7: Making the ascent: Coordinating activities of partner organizations with mutually-agreed-upon standard practices established by the collaboration The next level of potentially significant change to an individual organization’s operations will be jointly developed changes in the standard practices of participating organizations. In this case, the standard practices of individual organizations are not considered adequate to ensure the level of collective action needed to produce the desired outcome. For example, the devel- opment of a regional traveler information system that uses new communication technologies will require each participating organization to have a system that is compatible with the others. This is often accomplished through the adoption of common specifications for the regional information system, which all participating groups are expected to incorporate into their own purchasing procedures. Or, in the case of incident management programs, some of the more successful programs have adopted common protocols that specify what each organization responding to an incident will do, when it will be done, and who has ultimate responsibility. Important questions to ask in this step include the following: • Is the decision-making structure established early in the collaboration still sufficient to provide the level of coordination needed at this step on the ladder? If not, what changes should be made? • With respect to the collaboration goal, what decisions have to be made when? What are the current organizational procedures for making these decisions? • Are there elements to the collaborative strategy that require common procedures or activities on the part of those participating?

!! 33 • To what extent will the adoption of common procedures be opposed by those partici- pating in the collaboration? What incentives could be provided to support this change? • To what extent should these procedures be adopted simply by the collaboration or by each participating organization through its own procedure adoption process? • What decision-making structure is in place to make changes to the coordination strat- egy if it is not producing the desired outcome? The credibility of a collaborative effort depends on showing that the benefits associated with participation outweigh the perceived costs. Thus, in this step, where some level of auton- omy must be given up by the participating groups, it is very important that the joint activities that result from the collaboration be monitored and adjusted as appropriate to provide the most cost-effective outcome Are the results from Step 7 sufficient to meet the needs of your collaborative effort? If so, proceed to Step 10; if not, proceed to Step 8. The credibility of a collaborative effort depends on showing that the benefits associated with participation outweigh the perceived costs. Step 8: Maintaining the momentum: Coordinating activities through shared funding, management, and accountability In this step the collaboration takes a more active role in the management of the joint activ- ities and is accordingly held more accountable. In some ways, this step is the first sign of the emergence of a new entity, perhaps with a distinct logo, web site, functions, etc. In such a case, the participating agencies will most likely have to give up some responsibility for activities that they have been conducting, perhaps for many years. An example of such a collaboration might be the creation of a jointly operated regional transportation management center; deci- sions regarding allocation of resources and operational response strategies would be given to the collaborative group. Or, a new regional ridesharing or mobility management effort could be directed by a collaborative partnership from among many different public and private groups. Such a collaboration could have management participation from the major organiza- tions interested in regional mobility and be held accountable for budget allocations and ulti- mately transportation system performance.

34 “Many collaborations work quite well until it comes time to decide on the money— how will the funding be divided. Then it often falls apart.” —Ken Leonard, Wisconsin Department of Transportation Important questions to ask in this step include the following: • Is the decision-making structure established early in the collaboration still sufficient to provide the level of coordination needed at this step on the ladder? If not, what changes should be made? • Is a shared management and accountability arrangement enabled by legislation or administrative rule? If it is, what are the requirements of this enabling legislation? If it is not, should it be? • How are the important decisions going to be made in a shared management structure? Who will broker disagreements? Who will arbitrate competing priorities? • Will this decision-making structure likely change under different demands and con- texts? If so, how will such changes occur? And who is responsible for initiating such change? • If something goes wrong, who will likely receive the first call? Who will receive the last call? (No, it cannot be done by e-mail!) • Will any costs of the collaboration have to be jointly funded? If so, what is the most equitable allocation of these costs? • What organizational mechanisms or structures are in place to support shared manage- ment activities? Where are there gaps between the need for such structures and their being in place? If needs exist, how will you design and implement the tools for accom- plishing a joint management structure? • How is accountability for joint decision making going to be accomplished? What are the feedback mechanisms between outcomes and the decision-making structure? Although in some cases the shared management responsibility of this collaboration step might suggest the creation of an autonomous group having only a tenuous link to the original organizations, this step, in most cases, is nothing more than a delegation of authority to indi- viduals who are still employed by each organization. Are the results from Step 8 sufficient to meet the needs of your collaborative effort? If so, proceed to Step 10; if not, proceed to Step 9.

35 Step 9: Extending the ladder: Establishing a new organization to pursue the goals originally established by the collaboration This step recognizes the phenomenon of permanency that can lead to the creation of a new organizational structure. That is, one of the possible results of collaboration is the recom- mendation that a new organization be created to handle the day-to-day activities that are now part of the collaborative effort. The joint activities of those participating in the collaboration have taken on a life of their own, and the most appropriate strategy for now accomplishing the collaboration’s aims is to create an autonomous structure. An example of this is found in trans- portation management associations (TMAs), organizations that have been formed to coordi- nate the transportation service opportunities for employees in targeted activity centers. Almost all of the TMAs started with collaborative efforts on the part of developers, businesses, cham- bers of commerce, and local governments to develop employee transportation options. In almost all cases, and given models of such efforts elsewhere, these efforts evolved into the creation of an organization with responsibility for providing such services. “In Utah, we started out with an agreement not to merge. This lowered the risk for the actors that needed to engage in the collaboration.” —Robert Crow, Envision Utah Important questions to ask in this step include the following: • Is the creation of an organization enabled by legislation or administrative rule? If it is, what are the requirements of this enabling legislation? If it is not, should it be? • How will relations with the original collaboration partners be handled? How will their support be continued? • How will different partner activities be modified, transferred, or merged with those of the new organization so as to avoid inefficiencies and possible duplication? • How will common relationships with participants external to the collaboration be handled? How will these communications occur? • To the extent that members of the new organization are supplied by the original col- laboration partners, how will different organizational cultures be incorporated (if at all) into the new organization? • How will information and analysis capabilities be structured to reflect the new orga- nizational culture?

36 • What training and internal education of employees are necessary to reinforce intended goals? It is important to recognize that this step should not be viewed as the ultimate goal of collaboration (even though it is near the top of the ladder). Creating new organizations can be very risky and, if not done with care, can create more tensions and problems than orig- inally existed. Therefore, this step in the ladder of collaboration should only be taken when there are very clear needs identified and clear responsibilities delineated. Step 10: The view from here: Supporting and nurturing the level of collaboration that has resulted When the step on the collaboration ladder that satisfies everyone’s needs has been reached, several outcomes can occur: Declare victory and disband: This situation implies that the collaboration came into exis- tence to satisfy a very temporary need (e.g., planning for a special event), and once this event is over, the need for the collaboration disappears. Continue collaboration at this level and do not fall off the ladder: This scenario suggests that the ultimate goal of the collaboration is a continuing activity at the level of participa- tion represented by this step of the ladder. After satisfying the most immediate needs, explore climbing further: The experience of collaboration could create a desire on the part of the participants to examine higher lev- els of collaboration either for dealing with the original challenge or for addressing a new challenge. If the collaboration is to continue, the collaboration partnership must be nurtured. This basically means that participants should continue to receive benefits from their participation and that the collaborative effort is considered better than the sum of individual organizational actions. Important questions to ask in this step include the following: • What have been the benefits of the collaboration to date for each of the participants? Do the participants understand or at least perceive these benefits? • What actions or activities can be undertaken to reinforce such perception of benefits? • Are benefits still worth the cost in time, dollars, and staff? • Are the costs of the collaboration equitably distributed among participants? • How can a reward or incentive structure be established for collaboration participants to recognize the important role they are playing? • How can information exchange and personal contacts be maintained so that they can provide the foundation for other collaborative efforts?

!! 37 • When new organizations or staff members join the collaboration, how can they be edu- cated on the collaborative nature of the activities? • How can the benefits of collaboration be better communicated to decision makers, the media, and the general public? • How is the collaboration going to be evaluated over time so that improvements can be made and benefits can continue to accrue to participating organizations? Through such feedback, how can the collaboration be made more efficient and effective? Collaboration does not necessarily end when a problem has been solved. In many cases, the personal relationships and contacts that have been established act as the seed for further collaboration in other areas. Over time, providing mobility in a collaborative and coordinated way will be founded on the strong interpersonal and interorganizational relationships that are established among the major players. Collaboration does not necessarily end when a problem has been solved. Because the questions presented in each of the above steps can themselves act as an assess- ment methodology, they have been listed in Appendix D. This appendix can be used by those interested in knowing what issues have to be dealt with in evolving from one level of collab- oration to another.

Next: Chapter 4. Strategies and Tools for Collaboration »
From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s Transit Cooperative Research Program (TCRP) and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program have jointly produced and published From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making. The product, which can be referred to as TCRP Report 106 or NCHRP Report 536, provides examples of collaboration in multimodal decision making. The report is designed to provide practical advice to transportation professionals interested in identifying, implementing, and sustaining collaborative activities. Included with report is a CD-ROM (CRP-CD-52) that provides a detailed set of case examples and describes the research methodology. A companion product, available separately but designed to complement the report and CD-ROM, is TCRP Research Results Digest 65/NCHRP Research Results Digest 288: A New Vision of Mobility: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making that provides a brief overview of the research and findings used in developing the reports.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!