Managing Dynamic Public Sector Networks: Effectiveness, Performance, and a Methodological Framework in the Field of National Security

Abstract

Networks are increasing in number and in importance across the security field as a means of providing inter-agency coordination. Based on a large qualitative study of networks in the field of national security in Australia, this article aims to advance our knowledge of the internal properties of public sector networks in the field of national security and the conditions shaping their performance. It puts forward a multi-level theoretical framework involving five interdependent levels of analysis-structural, cultural, policy, technological and relational-that aims to account for the internal properties of networks and examines each of these levels in relation to public sector networks in the field of national security. Using detailed interviews with senior members of security, law enforcement and intelligence agencies, the article aims to highlight the potential lessons this framework has for strategically organising and managing dynamic networks within and beyond the field of national security.

Collaboration among public organizations: a systematic literature review on determinants of interinstitutional performance

“…We found that this smaller cluster provides the most consistent and significant insights into public interinstitutional contexts possibly anticipating future research trends. These papers refer to the kind of collaboration between Public collaboration performance governmental agencies, and they are identifiable as they refer to "interagency", "multiagency" or "interdepartmental" collaboration (Mu et al, 2019;Choi and Moynihan, 2019;Cohen, 2018;Whelan, 2011Whelan, , 2015Kelman et al, 2013;Lacey et al, 2012;Mullin and Daley, 2010;Krueathep et al, 2010).…”

“…According to papers in our sample, there is widespread consensus that the achievement of outcomes could be a function of formalization (Mu et al, 2019;Markovic, 2017;Cristofoli and Markovic, 2016;Macci o and Cristofoli, 2017;Whelan, 2015;Cristofoli et al, 2015). Formalized Public collaboration performance coordination rules and the standardization of operating procedures have been often seen as a basis for dividing decision-making competencies horizontally and equally among a broader set of network participants (Markovic, 2017).…”

“…However, it dedicates less attention to the identification and analysis of the drivers that foster the performance of collaboration. Many authors have already noted the lack of evidence about whether, when or how collaboration improves outcomes (Ulibarri, 2015; Whelan, 2015) while close attention to how and which managerial practices facilitate a better relationship among actors has been studied in depth.…”

“…(2019),Getha-Taylor et al (2019),Peters et al (2017),Markovic (2017),Klijn et al (2015), 2016, Varda and Retrum (2015,Ysa et al (2014),Oomsels and Bouckaert (2014) andWillem and Lucidarme (2014) Power sharingMu et al 2019, Ran andQi (2018), 2019 and Eglene et al (2007) Management strategies Peters et al (2017), Markovic (2017), Lucidarme et al (2016), Klijn et al (2015), 2016, Cristofoli and Markovic (2016), Cristofoli et al (2015), Ysa et al (2014), Meier and O'Toole (2010) and McGuire (2006) Leadership styles Campbell (2018), Ysa et al (2014), Kelman et al (2013), Behn (2010) and Eglene et al (2007) FormalizationMu et al 2019, Markovic (2017,Cristofoli and Markovic (2016),Whelan (2015), Macci o and andCristofoli et al (2015) …”

Applying a Typology of Governance Modes to Climate Change Adaptation

“…Networks have several strengths as a mode of governance. They are more participatory, flexible, and can foster innovation to address difficult policy problems through the inclusion of a broader range of actors and novel ideas (Bevir, 2012;Provan & Milward, 2001;Whelan, 2015). According to Rhodes (2000, p. 81), networks work best when "cross-sector, multi-agency co-operation and production is required" and "flexibility to meet localized, varied service demands as needed".…”