Partnership Management: Working Across Organisational Boundaries

Abstract

The short paper that follows is fundamentally about evidence-based practice. In Kuruvilla, Mays, Pleasant and Walt's (2006) terms it was an exercise in the application of research to service development and evidence-based practice. In Walter, Nutley, and Davies' (2003) taxonomy it resulted in a professional intervention, the development of which was led by research users seeking evidence to inform practice development. The team emerged out of a social network of individuals interested in partnership development issues (Kalucy, McIntyre, & Jackson-Bowers, 2007). The resulting paper was the foundation for a significant investment, by the Department of Human Services, in building capacity for partnership leadership in Victoria. The team that undertook this research-to-practice project consisted of three Primary Care Partnership (PCP) executive officers/managers, one of whom was also executive officer to the Statewide Chairs and Managers Group, a university researcher, and a final year undergraduate student working as a volunteer. The executive officer to the Statewide Chairs and Managers Group formed the team to explore broad issues of PCP development and to report to the chairs. The Statewide Chairs and Managers Group was the pathway through which the group's work would reach decision-makers. After a series of meetings to clarify the issues to be addressed, a developmental process for working with the chairs and managers was designed. The executive officers/managers were key to clear issue definition and appropriate process; the researcher to linking the issues to the partnership evidence base. The process relied on tapping the tacit knowledge of PCP managers and chairs and relating this to the relevant body of research. In this process implicit learning needs in regard to partnership leadership were articulated within a framework developed out of a complex research project undertaken with similar partnerships elsewhere. The university researcher on the team had a long history of research into partnerships and networks in the field of primary health care. The specific research project in question was a National Health and Medical Research Council-funded study of trust in the relationships between organisations in a Primary Care Partnership. The study of trust in a partnership is necessarily a study of partnership processes more generally. It was the general learning about partnership processes from this and related research that turned out to be so useful for the service system. The report of this work, that follows, was written in a form suitable for decision-making. It is not a research report but it is built on strong research-based frameworks that were "tested" in the local context. The recommendations are specific to PCPs in Victoria but will also be familiar to partnership workers elsewhere. The predicted effects of the recommendations are supported by research evidence.

Reducing emergency bed-days for older people? Network governance lessons from the ‘Improving the Future for Older People’ programme

“…Similarly, equal status and power among members rather than hierarchy and obedience, promotes joint learning and problem-solving (Ansell & Gash 2008, Brass et al, 2004. Network effectiveness is enhanced by a steering group (Provan & Kenis, 2008) acting as 'broker' to facilitate interaction between network members (Walker et al, 2007;Pope & Lewis, 2008). As trust takes time to form (Rodriguez et al, 2007) an existing organisation is likely to be more effective than a new one in coordinating other network members (Ansell & Gash, 2008).…”

Partnership Functioning: A Case in Point Between Government, Nongovernment, and a University in Australia

“…the university was ideally suited to create this neutral interpersonal space in which to allow the partnership to flourish. Walker and co-workers 16 There is ample literature to suggest that it may be prudent to follow up electronic communication with a telephone call to compensate for the lack of emotional tone in electronic communications. 23 The pitfalls associated with this form of communication were evident.…”

“…12,13 Although there is ample literature describing the benefits of partnerships between organizations, there is a dearth of information about how partnerships can be developed or how they function. [14][15][16] Although issues are likely to be similar across partnerships, the processes in which partners engage to resolve issues can be different. [14][15][16] This paper explores the partners' perspectives on how the partnership functioned and the processes they used to manage issues, such as, sharing ideas, commitment, involvement in decision making, ensuring transparency, managing competition, enhancing accountability, and seeking sustainability.…”

“…[14][15][16] Although issues are likely to be similar across partnerships, the processes in which partners engage to resolve issues can be different. [14][15][16] This paper explores the partners' perspectives on how the partnership functioned and the processes they used to manage issues, such as, sharing ideas, commitment, involvement in decision making, ensuring transparency, managing competition, enhancing accountability, and seeking sustainability. The facilitators and barriers that affected the partnership were examined, together with the manner in which they addressed the challenges, overcame difficulties, and worked within a participatory governance framework.…”