The standard view of this forum does not always work well with assistive technology. We also provide a simpler view, which still contains all features. Switch to simple view.

Carol Jacklin-Jarvis
Moderator
Post 1

19 October 2016, 6:11 PM Edited by Matthew Driver on 31 October 2016, 9:55 AM

Week 8, Activity 3 Continuing collaborative relationships

Post your 'map' of collaboration in this thread.  You will see that you can add this as an attachment to your message. Please be aware that the largest file size you can post is 500 KB. Alternatively, you may just want to tell us about the picture that emerges from your reflection on collaboration over the longer term.

- the changing structures of collaboration - the partnerships, working groups, joint projects that have all been part of the collaboration over a period of time.

- the individuals who have together moved the collaboration forward.  Have the same individuals stayed engaged, or has this changed over time?

- the processes of the collaboration - the meetings, terms of reference, decision-making structures, and the ways in which they have changed, but also the informal processes that individuals have developed between themselves.

- the policy context.  How significant has this been for the ways in which the collaboration has progressed over time?

- the organisations - have you been able to recognize shifts in the collaborating organisations' identities, or have these remained static?

In a context of continually changing structures, how do relationships between individuals, processes, policy, and organisational identity become woven together as the collaboration progresses over time?

Ian Jones Post 2 in reply to 1

29 November 2016, 7:10 AM
Attachment

Collaboration between public sector and voluntary sector to support staff to volunteer in communities.

Initially informal discussions and development were undertaken between senior staff. There then followed an increase in the number of people involved, this led to an increase in bureaucracy and processes which led onto tensions between managers and departments.

More partners became involved and there was an increase in balancing priorities particularly between national charities and local ones.

There was an increase in 'democratic' engagement with town and parish councils as well as Council elected members. Tension between representation and participation when delivering activities in communities. Increase in discussion between paid professionals and amateurs (volunteers), complexity would increase when there was changes in managerial staff while strategic ones remained.

Initially the meetings were quite informal and action focused. As the collaboration increased across organisations and in various departments the bureaucracy increased. More formal meetings, process, minutes etc. Senior staff that established the collaboration had to occasionally step in to re-focus, re-energise and overcome the inertia due to the bureaucracy that was stiffing activities.

The informal discussion established the policy framework. Once in place terms of reference were written, there were continually reviewed in order for the collaboration to remain flexible and not to become rigid and allow processes to dictate the required actions.

There was a national drive for public sector staff to volunteer. This was initially good and strengthened the overarching policy. However the rhetoric was not really followed through and this led to a decline in local political support from some members. It was useful though to refer to the national policy setting one some people did try to hinder progress.

The shift has not always been that significant, council receptive then when new chief executive came in there was a drive to improve staff engagement. There was still uncertainty in some departments about the collaboration as some managers try to control what is happening to improve their organisational standing at the cost of the collaboration.

Also some national partners with local delivery have changed their engagement through the collaborative learning. National practice is not always useful at the local level. Through the collaboration local delivery is becoming more nuanced and flexible to meet need.

The focus for my organisation has always been about trying to maximise impact. With the increase in collaboration a number of processes have become more formal. There was always tension with staff concerned that any formality did not destroy the creativity that allowed them to work with communities. Public sector partners still tend to work in silos and cross-cutting activity is difficult for them.

With the arrival of devolution and increased localism there is a tendency for public partners to focus on the cuts they are facing and thus the collaboration is about their institutional strains which are then reflected onto communities. There is an attitude of 'the council can not do it so communities must'. This is a deficit model and makes collaboration difficult from the perspective on people becoming involved for positive reasons. As an organisation we have turned away from a couple of collaborative activities due to this stance.

The relationship between individuals, organisations, policies and processes have to be constantly assessed and reviewed. The emerging nature of collaboration and the practice that follows has to be in flux continually as we do not want rigidity to stifle the innovation that arises from such partnerships.

Carol Jacklin-Jarvis Post 3 in reply to 2

29 November 2016, 7:03 PM

Hi Ian

Firstly, congratulations on reaching the end of the course.  I hope it's been useful.  Do keep coming back to the forum as more learners join our community.

Secondly, I find it very interesting to read your reflection above on how collaboration has developed over time.  In particular, I'm interested to read about how the formal and informal have interwoven over time.  Thank you for sharing this with us.

Carol

Stephen Elsden Post 4 in reply to 1

21 December 2016, 10:34 AM
Attachment

As our collaboration/partnership with KCC has grown in time and scale (from 2 'agreements' in 2006 to 8 contracts in 2016), so has our involvement in other initiatives and policy developments within the Council. This has put Compaid and our service users at the heart of discussions on improvements to the public transport framework within Kent, and how to further support disabled people.

It has also given us a much more equalised relationship in which we can understand the council's pressures and respond to them.


Carol Jacklin-Jarvis Post 5 in reply to 4

22 December 2016, 3:40 PM

Hi Stephen

Thanks for sharing this mapping of your organisation's collaboration.  It's really good to hear of examples of collaboration going well, and consequently generating further collaboration within a more equal relationship.  We hope the course was useful for reflecting on your practice.

Carol


John Hemming Post 6 in reply to 1

24 April 2017, 9:48 AM

John Hemming Post 7 in reply to 6

25 April 2017, 6:36 PM

The study of collaboration has added structure to a number of existing management practices and introduced new concepts and ways of looking at looking at tacking issues. 

At recent strategy days  I raised several challenging questions.  On the face of it the Charity is progressing well growing its balance sheet by 100% over the 10 years and making grants of over £1m per year but 10 years ago grants were already at £1m so in real terms our support to the community has fallen.  This has given rise to analysis of costs in particular of professional advisors and the spend on Almshouses, a core objective currently.  This has called into question whether or not our current objectives are still relevant in 2017.

Story telling is good way to deliver presentations of grant applications in a standard manner. The approach is to give the background of the organisation, what the problem is, what the solution is perceived to be, with costs, details of the organisations financial position.

Being more aware of the points of power in the meetings with Trustees has also helped achieving a very high approval rate of grant applicants and change in emphasis away from being totally capital oriented to including a number of revenue and grants for running costs.

Useful coalitions have been built with major grants recipients providing extensive community services and many have been bought together to support each others activities.  An excellent start has been made to building an on going relationship with the newly formed Local Town Council who have a £2m budget each year.  The Charity is joining them in supporting a major musical event in the local park.

Processes have been challenged, raising the threshold of when grants have to go to the Board for approval, reducing School Clothing grant criteria. 

Overall the Charity has to change in the coming years collaborating more with grant beneficiaries, the local Town Council and other organisations if we are to help fill the gap left by the withdrawal of central government and local authorities from the work of the third sector.

Darren Smith Post 8 in reply to 1

29 March 2018, 2:49 PM Edited by the author on 29 March 2018, 3:13 PM
Attachment

This was a fascinating task. It was difficult to incorporate all the colours into the time line, which displays the process component along a linear structure. More than half of the colours on my timeline should be an amalgam of different component colours. But it does at least give a sense of the kaleidoscopic evolution of the charity which I volunteer for.

 

Essex Blind Charity is approaching a hundred years of community engagement and collaboration. It has therefore undergone many changes in people, processes, policy and identity over its existence. So that would constitute a very long, meandering, and colourful combination of shifting patterns along its unfinished purposeful length. All mirrored in a time lagged phase by the complex collaborations that ebb and flow locally, nationally and internationally.

          

As with many other aspects of life, the component parts of collaborations run their course. This will mean that there will be loose ends, neat finishes, and much uncertainty ahead. So there will be a definite need to proceed with a greater awareness of collaborative leadership – thank you.

                                                                        

1. The long-term collaborative advantage is: It allows us to offer emotional and practical help at the point of diagnosis. It provides early intervention and an open channel of communication which can minimise isolation and future mental health problems.


Carol Jacklin-Jarvis Post 9 in reply to 8

3 April 2018, 8:30 AM

Hi Darren

It's good to know that you found this task useful, and fascinating to see the organization's history in the context of these changing collaborations.  Thanks for sharing this.

Carol

Peta Wilkinson Post 10 in reply to 1

30 July 2018, 12:02 PM

Week 8 Activity 3

Attachment

The picture represents the changes over time in our collaborative relationships. It demonstrates that the engagement has changed and matured over time and has been subject to different groupings and levels of engagement. The aims have evolved over time into something that is jointly owned. 

The individuals have remained relatively constant apart from a role change and have remained differentially engaged over time. However, recently the refining of aimed has given a level of cohesion not previously seen. 

The process of collaboration has moved on a spectrum between informal - formal but is flexible to meet the needs of the collaborative project. 

The policy context has remained relatively the same but is just about to change as the strategic footprint changes and the leadership structure is revised.

These things are woven together around the needs of the project and the recognition of the impact upon peoples roles and engagement with patients.