National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Chapter 4. Strategies and Tools for Collaboration

« Previous: Chapter 3. The Evolution of Collaborative Relationships Moving Up the Ladder
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4. Strategies and Tools for Collaboration." 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 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4. Strategies and Tools for Collaboration." 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 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4. Strategies and Tools for Collaboration." 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 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4. Strategies and Tools for Collaboration." 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 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4. Strategies and Tools for Collaboration." 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 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4. Strategies and Tools for Collaboration." 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 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4. Strategies and Tools for Collaboration." 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 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4. Strategies and Tools for Collaboration." 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 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4. Strategies and Tools for Collaboration." 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 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4. Strategies and Tools for Collaboration." 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 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4. Strategies and Tools for Collaboration." 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 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4. Strategies and Tools for Collaboration." 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 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4. Strategies and Tools for Collaboration." 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 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4. Strategies and Tools for Collaboration." 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 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4. Strategies and Tools for Collaboration." 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 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4. Strategies and Tools for Collaboration." 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 53

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.

38 4.0 STRATEGIES AND TOOLS FOR COLLABORATION The strategies and tools for collaboration will vary according to which step of the collaboration ladder you are on and the history of successful collabora- tion in the past. Clearly, the higher the step on the ladder, the more formal and structured the strategies would be. For example, developing a formal structure of shared management and accountability will require a close exam- ination of the legal and institutional prerogatives of existing organizations and the identifica- tion of the desired decision-making structure. Some of the strategies found in the collaboration case studies for this study include the following: • Purpose and Needs Statement • Agreement on Language and Terms • Ad Hoc Planning and Decision Structures • Task Forces/Committees • Common Work/Activities Program • Staff Assignment/Rotation • Staff Training • Third-Party Facilitation • Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement • Collaboration Technology • Co-Location • Forming a New Organization Purpose and Needs Statement Description: A clearly defined and articulated reason for a collaboration is a prerequi- site for success. In many cases, the reason for a collaboration is clear and obvious, e.g., prepar- ing and managing a transportation strategy for the Olympic Games. However, in other situa- tions, the purpose might be stated by leading proponents, but the boundary of the collaboration might not be clear. For example, many collaborations have been created to promote mobility in a targeted area (e.g., an activity center, downtown, or region). Questions might be asked about the geographic scope of the collaborative effort, the definition of mobility, the target audience (e.g., simply commuters or all travelers?), and the time scale of potential solutions (e.g., today’s mobility problems or those 30 years hence?). One of the ways to avoid problems

!! 39 of misinterpretation later in the collaboration is to agree on a purpose and needs statement early in the process. Quite simply, such a statement identifies what you are trying to accom- plish and the desired characteristics of the outcome. Through the process of agreeing to (or possibly negotiating) the purpose and needs statement, collaboration participants develop a more in-depth sense of what the collaboration means and perhaps identify additional partici- pants who should be asked to join the effort. One of the ways to avoid problems of misinterpretation later in the collaboration is to agree on a purpose and needs statement early in the process. Advantages: • Defining a purpose and needs statement early in the process promotes the “shaking out” of the subtle and not-so-subtle aspects of the collaboration. It is better to work out the differences in how participants view a collaboration as early as possible, so that subsequent steps are taken with mutually agreed-upon reasoning. • A purpose and needs statement acts as an important reminder throughout the collabo- ration of why it is being undertaken. • A purpose and needs statement can be an important resource for the media when try- ing to explain what this collaboration is about. • A purpose and needs statement can help identify measures of accomplishment that provides participants with some sense of progress, which motivates continued partic- ipation in the collaboration. Challenges: • Purpose and needs statements can be grandiose and vague, and thus meaningless in motivating continued collaboration. • Although useful for identifying points of disagreement among participants, this might not be such a good thing so early in the process. In some cases, successful collabora- tion might rely on developing close personal relationships, which might not occur for many years. Disagreements over a purpose and needs statement could prematurely damage establishing trust. Agreement on Language and Terms Description: One of the most common challenges facing those participating in the col- laborations examined for this research was the lack of a common language among participants. Technical terms and professional jargon can often lead to confusion and misunderstanding. Even within one discipline, different vocabulary and acronyms can be confusing. For example, those involved with incident management programs often use vocabulary that is strange to

! ! 40 those in a state’s DOT or local highway departments. Developing an agreement on language and terms, in essence, requires taking some time early in a collaboration to discuss vocabu- lary, acronyms, and technical language so that each partner can understand what the other is saying. Although this might result in a written glossary of terms, it does not have to. Advantages: • Establishing the definition of commonly used terms and acronyms will go a long way toward minimizing confusion in later discussions. If trust is based on effective com- munication, effective communication is based on understanding the language being used to exchange information. • Written documentation on these terms and acronyms can be used to educate partici- pants who join the collaboration at a later time. Challenges: • Even though a common language could be established for a collaboration, there will be tendencies to revert to professional jargon as new partners join the collaboration and the long-standing tradition of using specialized terms creeps back into discussions. Establishing trust is based on effective communication; effective communication is based on understanding the language being used to exchange information. Ad Hoc Planning and Decision Structures Description: The coming together of like-minded individuals and groups will often work if everyone is willing to accept the results of group decisions. In such a case, there is no need for a formal structure, such as a task force or committee, to accomplish what needs to be done; ad hoc or informal planning and decision structures can be used as long as possible to guide the collaboration in its activities. Such interaction is common among planning or oper- ating staff where joint activities are necessary to accomplish some task that is often perceived to be of a short-term nature or that is necessary to get approval of the ultimate product of a collaboration. Thus, for example, the planning staff of many MPOs have established “work- ing relationships” with local planners and with their counterparts in the region’s operating agencies so that the outcome of the planning process is acceptable to those who have to imple- ment the actions. Although many of the formal decisions in the MPO structure occur in com- mittees, much of the collaboration occurs outside of the committee structure.

41 Advantages: • Ad hoc planning and decision structures work well among the planning and operations staff. They are based on professional and individual respect for the actions of others. • Such structures do not require enabling authority. • Given the informal and interpersonal nature of the interaction, ad hoc structures can lead to the creation of trust among the participants faster than more formal mechanisms. • The participation in ad hoc groups usually occurs because it is viewed as being worth- while and beneficial to the organization. Challenges: • By their very definition, ad hoc groups often do not have a position in the hierarchy of organizations. Thus, they could have great difficulty changing the standard practices of more formal organizations. • Participation in ad hoc groups might not be recognized by top management as a worth- while and rewarding activity for its staff members. Thus, the long-term stability of this activity could be threatened by the very nature of how it operates. • Ad hoc structures are susceptible to disruption by the removal of one or more key par- ticipants, given that participation originally was most likely undertaken for profes- sional interest. There might not be any replacements for such participants unless the parent organization sanctions the activity. Task Forces/Committees Description: Some form of institutional mechanism is often necessary to act as a forum for the interaction and communication in a collaboration, especially when the collaboration will be held accountable for achieving jointly held goals. In most transportation cases, this mecha- nism has been a task force or committee that examines the intricacies of the challenge being faced. (See the accompanying box, “Types of Decision-Making Structures.”) For purposes of this guidebook, a task force will be defined as a temporary planning or decision-making struc- ture aimed at achieving a well-defined set of goals. A committee (or subcommittee) is a more permanent planning or decision-making structure that has been established for dealing with certain types of issues. Thus, a committee implies a long-standing commitment to organiza- tional participation. A task force can itself remain the viable institutional means of conducting collaborative activities, or it can be replaced with a committee structure that represents different roles within the functions of the collaboration. For example, in almost all of the collaboration cases in the Compendium, an executive committee consisting of the top managers or leaders of the partner organizations was created to provide top-management involvement for those decisions that were critical to the success of the collaboration. Such a committee need not meet often; or it can meet on a regular basis, depending on the circumstances of the challenge being faced. Along with the executive committee, a committee consisting of the top technical representatives from each

!! 42 organization is often created to coordinate day-to-day activities. This committee is, in some ways, more important than the executive committee in that the ultimate success or failure of the collaboration will depend on the ability of the operations staff of all participating organi- zations to work together. A final possible institutional mechanism for fostering communication and credibility in the collaboration is an advisory committee, which consists of representative from stakehold- ers and constituencies that often do not have a direct stake in the collaboration but represent important viewpoints. Some form of institutional mechanism is usually necessary to act as a forum for the interaction and communication that is inherent in a collaboration. Advantages: • Task forces and committees are time-honored means of convening individuals repre- senting different perspectives, concerns, and responsibilities, and thus they are most often not viewed as an organizational threat to more traditional participants. • Responsibilities within the context of these forums include the keeping of minutes, and thus documentation is produced that provides the evolutionary history of the collaboration. • Formal membership in a task force or committee is given to an organization, not an individual. Thus, as individual staff members or managers change, the organizational representation does not. Challenges: • If not handled carefully, task forces and committees can become very bureaucratic and responsive only to the dictates of those who chair them. • The decision on who chairs (or cochairs) a task force or committee is an important and possibly contentious one. An individual who is unable to keep a meeting moving toward achievable ends or who cannot control the personal interaction among diver- gent interests can be a significant detriment to successful collaboration.

43 Common Work/Activities Program Description: Developing a common purpose and needs statement does not necessarily result in a general buy-in into the activities of the collaboration. In most of the collaboration examples examined in this research, some technical analysis or problem-solving had to occur prior to achieving the desired outcomes. A willingness to conduct an honest assessment of both the technical and institutional challenges facing a collaboration is often a prerequisite to developing an institutional strategy for meeting these challenges. Such an assessment requires the formulation of a jointly approved work program of activities that will lead to successful achievement of a collaboration’s goals. It is important in this work program that both intermediate and long-term accomplishments be programmed into the overall effort. Showing that progress can be made and that benefits will accrue to the participants in the near term is an important element of building confidence in the collaborative effort. (See the accompanying box, “The Freeway Concept of Operations Plan,” for an example of how collaborative plan- ning can help agencies coordinate their activities.) Types of Decision-Making Structures The following decision-making structures were found in the case examples highlighted in the Compendium. Location Issue Decision-Making Structure Atlanta Olympics transportation plan Coordinating committees Bay Area Transportation system management Freeway management committee Transit coordinating council Boston Freeway reconstruction DOT task force Calgary Regional mobility Technical staff team coordination Denver Traffic signal coordination MPO subcommittee Hampton Roads Emergency management plan MPO task force Houston Transportation system management New organization (TranStar) I-95 Coalition Corridor system operation Voluntary organization National Parks Transportation for national parks Interagency agreements New York Transportation system management New organization (TRANSCOM) Phoenix Transportation system management New organization (AZTech) Pittsburgh Freeway reconstruction DOT task force Portland Transportation/land use coordination Interorganizational committee Transportation service provision New organization (TMA) Salt Lake City Olympics transportation plan Coordinating committees Sweden Coordinated trip planning information New organization Washington D.C. Emergency management plan MPO task force

!! !! 44 A willingness to conduct an honest assessment of both the technical and institutional challenges facing a collaboration is often a prerequisite to developing an institutional strategy for meeting these challenges. Advantages: • A work program lays out the necessary information-producing activities that must be undertaken to support the decision-making process. • In many cases, the development of a work program includes the allocation of staff resources and budget; thus, early in the process, you can determine the willingness of collaboration participants to make important trade-offs in order to participate. • A work program provides more detail on what steps must be taken to achieve the vision laid out earlier. Thus, the development of a work program represents an effort to describe in process terms what will be necessary to achieve the goals. It is thus another opportunity for participants to understand more fully what the collaboration is all about. • The process of creating a joint work program promotes the development of a common language of collaboration, that is, everyone can begin to understand the terminology used by others. Challenges: • As stated above, the development of a work program provides an opportunity to deter- mine the willingness of partners to allocate resources to the effort. If the work program development process begins too early, that is, before trust has been established among the participants, this effort could lead to significant debilitating disagreements over responsibilities and roles very early in the process. • Work program elements must be assigned to those who are most capable of produc- ing results. At an early stage in the collaboration process, knowing who this might be could be problematic. Showing that progress can be made and that benefits will accrue to the participants in the near term is an important element of building confidence in the collaborative effort.

45 Staff Assignment/Rotation Description: Nothing sends a clearer message of the importance of an activity to an organization than assigning staff resources to the effort. This might include both a senior man- ager as well as line staff members who can support collaboration activities on a day-to-day basis. In connection with such an assignment, it is important that senior management make it clear that the assignment is considered an important activity to the agency. Such assigned staff could be housed in a one of the collaboration-participating organizations, assigned to a space commonly managed by the collaboration, or loaned to the collaboration under its management structure. An interesting permutation of this strategy is to rotate staff in collaboration activi- ties so that more than just a small number of staff members become familiar with the benefits of the collaboration. The Freeway Concept of Operations Plan in the San Francisco Bay Area is an example of how collaborative planning and decision making can provide important guidance to oper- ating agencies for better coordinating their activities with those of other agencies. The types of strategies that are part of this plan include • Developing a regional strategic plan for system implementation and integration • Developing a regional evacuation management plan • Developing a regional architecture for intelligent transportation system (ITS) technologies • Integrating incident detection activities among participating agencies • Developing and implement an enhanced and integrated California Highway Patrol data management system • Providing a common radio frequency for emergency responders • Establishing and maintaining a sustainable communications system for free- way operations • Completing improvements to Caltrans’ traffic management center • Developing and implementing an enhanced and integrated traveler informa- tion system • Developing an overall data and video sharing policy • Investigating a corridor-based ramp metering policy • Improving response and clearance time for incidents • Establishing a maintenance program for freeway operations • Establishing a staffing and funding program • Establishing an ongoing interagency capacity building

!! 46 Nothing better sends a clearer message of the importance of an activity to an organization than assigning staff resources to the effort. Advantages: • Staff assignment and rotation sends a message to the rest of the organization of how important collaboration activities are to top management. • Dedicated staff helps build the personal relationships that lead to a foundation of trust that is so critical to collaboration success. • Staff assigned to the collaboration become an important source of information to an organization on what the collaboration is doing. Challenges: • Unless the importance of the assignment is clearly articulated by top management, staff members might view this responsibility as a necessary detour in their own career path, one that is not viewed very enthusiastically. • The success of this strategy depends to a large extent on the skills, abilities, and atti- tudes of the staff members assigned to the task. The best choice of staff will be those who clearly want to work with people, are problem solvers, and who understand the importance of collaborative efforts, in other words, the best people in the organization! However, the assignment of such people to the collaboration might take these indi- viduals away from other important tasks. Staff Training Description: Interviews with many collaboration participants in the case studies for this research led to a very important observation concerning what makes a collaboration success- ful—the willingness and capacity of the staff to work in a collaborative environment. Although many of the founders of a collaboration are naturally inclined to work effectively with others, people who might not have such a perspective may join it as the collaboration evolves. Many times, successful collaborations that have evolved to more formal and longer lasting arrange- ments have devoted considerable resources to the training of their staff. This training has included such topics as conflict resolution, bargaining and negotiations, effective communi- cations, time management, and more technical subjects related to the focus of the collabora- tion (e.g., ITS technologies, information system integration, work zone safety, etc.). Enhanc- ing staff abilities to deal with the changing nature of a collaboration improves the chances of a collaboration’s success.

!! 47 Advantages: • Staff perceptions of career advancement are very important for employee morale and organizational effectiveness. Training is a good way of sending a message that the col- laboration and its partner organizations are willing to invest in the staff’s future. • Training provides a relatively easy way of bringing the latest thinking to the collab- oration partners and of fostering further innovative approaches to meeting collabo- ration goals. • Training is one of the few ways of fostering a new way of behaving and thinking among an organization’s employees. • Training programs are flexible. If individual training modules are not considered suc- cessful, they need not be used again. Challenges: • Training could take employees away from other important tasks. • Training courses and programs are usually offered on a fee basis, and thus these costs must be incorporated into the budget. • Training aimed at interaction skills must be constantly offered and reoffered to rein- force the desired result. Enhancing the abilities of the staff to deal with the changing nature of a collaboration improves the chances of a collaboration’s success. Third-Party Facilitation Description: Given institutional or personal conflict between some of those participat- ing (or wanting to participate) in a collaboration, it might be impossible to establish a credi- ble interaction and decision-making process with these participants. In other words, there is no obvious credible or accepted authority for managing the process. In such situations, the participation of someone who can help guide the discussion leading up to a decision might be warranted. A facilitator could be used to move the collaboration partners along a path of progress. Such a facilitator can organize and manage meetings, develop consensus documents, act as a go-between among participants (if necessary), and suggest compromise solutions to avoid breakdowns in communications and working relationships. In most cases, the facilita- tor is not someone from the organizations participating in the collaboration. However, in some unusual cases, someone from one of the collaborative partners might be able to serve in this position.

!! 48 Advantages: • A skilled, third-party facilitator can guide a process of decision making without wor- rying about the relative influence and clout of those participating. • Facilitation promotes the involvement of all participants in a collaboration, and thus encourages buy-in to the ultimate purpose of the effort. • If done effectively, facilitation can quickly identify areas of agreement, points of con- tention, and issues that remain to be resolved. In other words, it speeds up the process of decision making and the identification of topics that participants should devote more attention to. • A facilitator who is knowledgeable about the topic, which is always preferable, can offer suggestions to resolve impasses in decision making. Facilitation promotes the involvement of all participants in a collaboration and thus encourages buy-in to the ultimate purpose of the effort. Challenges: • The more influential and powerful participants in a collaboration could view a third- party facilitator as usurping their authority, thus becoming a threat. • A good facilitator is hard to find, especially one who knows something about the topic. • A poorly facilitated meeting could create a backlash against the collaboration effort if it is perceived that not much is being accomplished. • Facilitation is most effective when planned and thought through, thus implying at least a 2- to 3-month planning horizon for an individual meeting. It is thus not a technique that can be used effectively for dealing with short-term issues. Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement Description: One of the most common mechanisms used by public agencies to formal- ize collaboration is the adoption of a memorandum of understanding (MOU), sometimes called a memorandum of agreement (MOA). These documents spell out the respective roles that the signatories will have in pursuing joint activities. The MOU also often states the moti- vation or rationale for the collaborative effort. In almost all cases, these documents are not legally binding on the participants; that is, they do not represent a contract. However, they do represent a politically potent tool for defining the activities and responsibilities of those involved in a collaboration. They can be used to justify the assignment of staff outside nor- mal operations, the allocation of budget to activities not usually undertaken by an organiza- tion, and the adoption of roles that could be unusual for a particular agency.

!! 49 Many of the participants in the focus groups warned that the formulation of an MOU can be one of the greatest stumbling blocks in the evolutionary path of a collaboration. Whereas up to the adoption of an MOU, collaborative efforts were undertaken in either ad hoc or infor- mal ways, the MOU implies commitment and an agreement on respective roles. In many ways, with the adoption of an MOU, the collaboration accepts formalized procedures and roles, and thus potentially leaves behind the close interpersonal relationships that characterized the early steps in the evolution of the collaboration. With an organizational imprimatur, the collabora- tion becomes linked to the often risk-averse nature of organizational behavior, and thus less likely to take major steps beyond those considered feasible by organizational managers. One of the most common institutional mechanisms used by public agencies to establish the defining characteristics of a collaboration is the adoption of a memorandum of understanding (MOU), sometimes called a memorandum of agreement (MOA). However…. The adoption of an MOU implies commitment and an agreement on respective roles, thus opening legal and political questions concerning appropriate relationships. The collaboration, which up to this point could have been based on strong interpersonal, yet informal relationships, might not survive a more formal institutional context. Advantages: • The MOU provides written documentation on the purpose of, and approach to, col- laboration. This is useful for describing the collaboration to others and can serve as an important source of “institutional memory” as the collaboration evolves. • The MOU is an accepted means of formalizing relationships among partners in an undertaking. • In most cases, MOUs are signed by the top leadership of an organization or by the political leaders of a jurisdiction, if appropriate. This thus means that the top leader- ship is aware of and presumably supports the collaboration.

50 Challenges: • If not stated in flexible terms, the roles and responsibilities as stated in the MOU could constrain a flexible response to a situation that demands such flexibility. • Although important for establishing roles and responsibilities, an MOU does not nec- essarily lead to budget reallocations and shifts in staff resources. Changes in organi- zational leadership could thus result in a backing away from the collaboration as described in the MOU. Collaboration Technology Description: The term “collaboration” in information systems has a very distinct mean- ing, referring to the use of technology that allows different individuals located far apart to “prob- lem solve.” These technologies consist of communication systems and software that guide a team effort at collaboration. Such a definition of collaboration is too specific for the pur- poses of this guidebook, but the approach that it describes could be useful for transportation- related collaboration. Advantages: • For participants located some distance from each other, this technology might be the only feasible means of jointly participating in the collaborative effort. • The approach provides a structured process of working through a problem and thus promotes a sense of rigor and accomplishment to those participating. • Given that participants are involved with collaboration in an impersonal manner, the influence of personality and group dynamics on decision making is minimized. • The computer-based foundation for the interaction allows the information exchange to include graphics, spreadsheets, and other data forms in a much more user-friendly manner. • To the extent that decision making includes some effort at consensus-building, tech- niques can be used (such as the Delphi process) that allow participants to understand the reasoning behind the observations and conclusions of others and to modify their input as appropriate. Challenges: • In transportation collaborations, most of the major participants are located close to one another and can thus conduct business personally. If the majority of participants are physically meeting in one location and others are joining via the internet, the remote participants could be at a disadvantage in terms of influencing final decisions. • Many participants could feel uncomfortable participating in collaborative decision making over long distances via the internet.

!! 51 • As noted earlier in this handbook, the basic foundation for effective collaboration is developing trust among the participants. Reliance on communications technology that provides an impersonal, yet possibly effective, means of interaction does not lend itself to developing a sense of trust among the participants. • Most collaboration software is proprietary and thus there will be a cost associated with its purchase and the training in its use. Reliance on communications technology that provides an impersonal yet possibly effective means of interaction does not lend itself to developing a sense of trust among the participants. Co-Location Description: Physically locating the representatives of those agencies participating in the collaboration in the same space is a strategy that assumes that proximity enhances communi- cation among the participants. This strategy has been used successfully in several regional traf- fic management centers where highway, transit, emergency response, and other relevant gov- ernment agencies have representatives working side-by-side. In addition, co-location has been used on a temporary basis for dealing with short-term collaborations, such as the planning and management of special events and emergency response to unexpected events. Co-location of relevant agencies is not an uncommon sight during natural disaster responses. In fact, many emergency management centers have been physically designed with the participation of many agencies in mind. Advantages: • Physical proximity encourages both the formal and informal interaction of personnel that helps build the foundation for collaborative action. • Communication systems and technical support are common to all those involved at the site, and thus one avoids the issue of incompatible information systems. • Decisions relating to real-time events can be communicated quickly and effectively. • A single location for collaborative activities represents a presence that suggests a per- formance of collaboration efforts. Physical proximity encourages both the formal and informal interaction of personnel that help build the foundation for a collaborative action.

52 Challenges: • A single space for collaborative activities can be expensive and raise questions about the equitable sharing of costs. • Assignment of personnel to a satellite location could be viewed as a “lessening of pres- tige” by those coming from a traditional agency culture. • Supervision and administration of organizational staff assigned to this site could be problematic. • Whatever communication and information system technologies are adopted for this site must be compatible with all such systems for participating groups, or all of these other systems must be made compatible with the site’s systems. • Agreements must be made concerning the responsibility for common functions. For example, who will be the spokesperson to the media during unusual events? Forming a New Organization Description: The level of collaboration might become so complex or specialized that it makes sense to develop a new organizational unit dedicated to providing service. This could mean that staff members and resources from existing organizations might be removed from their current organizational affiliation to this new unit, or an organization could be created with all new staff members. In most cases, creating a new organization is the last step in col- laborative efforts to meet a specific challenge. This could represent a natural evolution of all the collaboration steps that have been taken before, or it could be a political reaction to the inability of existing organizations and groups to work together in a collaborative way. For example, the creation of the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, a new organization with responsibility for coordinating transportation and land use decisions in the Atlanta region, was a direct result of a business community’s and governor’s frustration with the inability of existing agencies to work together successfully. The creation of a new organiza- tion in such circumstances, however, often creates more collaboration challenges than it solves, given the reaction of existing groups to a new participant having little history of work- ing within the current institutional structure. In other words, the level of trust that is necessary for collaboration to succeed has not yet been established. Advantages: • A new organization, if viewed as having evolved naturally from many years of col- laborative effort, dedicates staff and resources to the challenge being faced by the par- ticipants. It represents the creation of a new entity that could relieve existing organi- zations of the responsibility for dealing with this challenge. • A new organization can develop its own organizational culture, personnel reward structure, constituency base, and institutional presence in order to solve problems fac- ing a region or state.

!! 53 • By having its own personnel system, the organization can convey to staff members a sense of permanence in career development and loyalty. Challenges: • The creation of any new organization entails significant start-up costs and uncertain- ties concerning new responsibilities and operating procedures. There will, out of necessity, be a period of transition when new staff members are learning their jobs. • A new organization in an existing institutional structure for transportation decision making and operations could be viewed as a competitor for resources and thus run into opposition from more entrenched agencies. • A new organization often faces a significant challenge conveying its mission and mes- sage to the general public and local officials. This will require a concerted outreach effort on the part of organizational leaders to convey this information. • Organizational structures, over time, often become more rigid in their approach to handling activities for which they are responsible. If the purpose of the collaboration to begin with was providing a flexible response to the challenge facing the partici- pants, a new organizational structure, defined by standard operating procedures, is perhaps not the best way of ensuring continued flexibility in response to rapidly chang- ing challenges. A new organization can develop its own organizational culture, personnel reward structure, constituency base, and institutional presence in order to solve problems facing a region or state

Next: Chapter 5. Bringing It All Together »
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!