Effective Strategy Implementation: Why Partnership Interconnectivity Matters

Abstract

Planners and city officials are increasingly being encouraged to create and make use of a variety of partnerships designed to tackle 'wicked-issues' in their localities. However, many of these partnerships are by nature ephemeral, lasting only as long as their funding exists or until their particular work-package is completed. A great deal of attention is paid to the internal functioning of these partnerships but rather less is paid to the structural elements involved in how these partnerships are mapped onto existing governing structures. This creates a problem where the knowledge generated by these partnerships may also be seen as ephemeral, adding to partnership fatigue and cynicism amongst stakeholders. By linking network structure and collaborative capacity, I explore the depth of penetration and longevity of the knowledge created in such local partnerships.

A collaborative approach to event-led regeneration: The governance of legacy from the 2014 Commonwealth Games

“…Indeed, within the event-led regeneration legacy context, there is little understanding of the evolution of legacy development as a strategy for social and economic regeneration in the UK, and, how such a partnership should be governed (Leopkey and Parent, 2012). Holman (2013) suggests that key to network success is the interconnectivity of partnerships, and their embedding within, rather than detachment from, broader local governance decision-making structures.…”

Cross-Border Collaboration in Economic Development: Institutional Change on the Anglo-Scottish Border

“…Much has been written about the role of partnerships and collaboration in local economic development in the UK in past decades. Recently, Holman (2013) has restated some of the fundamental questions about the role of local partnership specifically in an urban context. This analysis notes some longstanding issues associated with the concept and practice of partnership including their ephemeral nature, the complexities that arise from juxtaposition with so-called mainstream activities and the fatigue and cynicism that can be generated when partnerships cease to deliver expected benefits.…”

“…There is now a substantial body of literature related to the role and significance of partnerships between institutions as a basis for the delivery of local and regional economic development (see, for instance, Mackintosh 1992;Hastings 1996;Atkinson 1999, McQuaid 1999, 2010Carley 2000Carley , 2006Geddes 2000Geddes , 2006Edwards et al 2000;Gibbs et al 2001;Coulson 2005;Breda-Vàsquez, Conceicao and Fernandes 2009;Holman, 2013). More recently, the debate surrounding the impacts of partnerships has been given further impetus by questions concerning the effects of institutional borders, and national borders in particular, on the character and effectiveness of local and regional development.…”

‘Avoiding the certainty trap’: a research programme for the policy–practice interface

“…At the core of our argument is recognition that development of any policy is a series of practices reflective of interacting discourses (Kern, 2011). That is, our understanding of the 'doing' of the policy process includes communication, knowledge exchange, networks, and interactions across the administration as much as the on-ground policy implementation (Holman, 2013). Dominant, institutionalised culture informs and reinforces organisational discourse.…”