No abstract

No abstract

Countries around the world spend substantial amounts of money on programmes designed to address social issues such as place-based disadvantage, health and aged care. Despite such huge investments, evidence shows that many of these social problems are complex and remain far from being resolved, and in some situations, they are worsening. To face these challenges, many organizations have turned to interorganizational collaboration as a more effective means of dealing with social issues. This exploratory qualitative study investigates a relatively new framework for tackling complex social challenges-Collective Impact. We show that while the interpretation and application of the Collective Impact framework varies, broad similarities can be found. We conclude that Collective Impact is best conceptualized as a method for network-based collaboration rather than a distinct methodology or philosophy, and emphasize the importance of the relational aspects of interorganizational collaboration.

The use of quasi-markets in diverse areas of social and health care has grown internationally. This has been accompanied by a growing awareness of how governments can manage these markets in order to meet their goals, with a range of terms emerging to encapsulate this such as market "shaping", "stewarding" or "steering". The task is further complicated because there are many types of quasi-market, encompassing contracting, commissioning, tendering and the use of individual budgets. In this paper we provide a narrative review of the evidence on attempts at management of quasi-markets based on the tools of individual budgets or voucher systems (referred to as personalization markets). Though much theory exists, we find limited empirical evidence to guide practitioners in market shaping activities of quasi-markets using individual budgets or voucher systems. More practice-orientated empirical evidence is needed regarding what does and does not work in supporting quasi-markets. ARTICLE HISTORY

The changing nature of organisations in the public sector means that collaboration has become an imperative for many. Notwithstanding considerable scholarly agreement about factors contributing to successful collaboration, a broadly accepted model of collaborative practice has not coalesced. In this paper, we put forward an augmented collaboration assessment tool. Building on existing research, we argue that systems thinking can help us better account for the dynamic and multidimensional nature of collaboration – a process in which partner organisations are interconnected and organised in a way that seeks to achieve a common purpose that they could not have achieved alone. We tested the validity of our tool using a three‐stage, iterative mixed‐methods approach. Our research confirms the value of a diagnostic tool to assist collaboration partners navigate an often uncertain terrain. It further establishes the value of our tool in illuminating a collaboration's dynamic interactions as a means to evaluate ‘collaboration health’.