uncgcollaborativecapacity.wikispaces.com... · Web viewUNCG Collaborative Capacity Work Group. WORKING DRAFT . BUILDING COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY . A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT. January 25,

UNCG Collaborative Capacity Work Group

WORKING DRAFT

BUILDING COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT

January 25, 2012

NOTE: This is an initial rough working draft organized around the 6 assignment areas (IN CAPS) discussed at the initial September 15 initial meeting of the Work Group. A guidance document draft outline will be developed in advance of the April 2012 WG conference call.

“Collaboration is becoming the 21st century’s governance tool of choice and necessity.”

-UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies

CCWG Wikispace: http://uncgcollaborativecapacity.wikispaces.com/

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION.................................................................. 2 A. Work Group Charge.....................................................2 B. Guidance Document Format.......................................2 C. Definitions...................................................................3 D. Benefits of Developing Collaborative Capacity...........5

II. THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY...............................................................................5 References....................................................................9 Appendix- KSAs for Collaborative Capacity................11

III. COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY INITIATIVES.............................19

IV. COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY LITERATURE REVIEW.................27

Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12 1

http://uncgcollaborativecapacity.wikispaces.com/

I. INTRODUCTION

A. Workgroup Charge

Building on a session at the June, 2011 UNCG meeting in Portland, OR, a small group of UNCG members agreed to explore whether and then how to usefully expand upon the UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies report to provide collaborative capacity guidance for those working within organizations in collaborative governance settings.

This should be explored in the context of the evolving understanding of collaborative governance,1 the UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies,2 and recent efforts in implementing collaborative capacity assessments3

Initial Draft Study Questions to refine and explore include:

1. Definitional: What collaborative capacity? What is the relationship between collaborative governance and collaborative capacity? What is the relationship between collaborative competencies and collaborative capacity?

1 “The (collaborative governance) framework specifies a set of nested dimensions that encompass a larger system context, a collaborative governance regime, and its internal collaborative dynamics and actions that can generate impacts and adaptations across the systems. The framework provides a broad conceptual map for situating and exploring components of cross-boundary governance systems that range from policy or program-based intergovernmental cooperation to place-based regional collaboration with non-governmental stakeholders to public-private partnerships. The framework integrates knowledge about individual incentives and barriers to collective action, collaborative social learning and conflict resolution processes, and institutional arrangements for cross- boundary collaboration.” An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance, by Kirk Emerson, Tina Nabatchi, Steve Balogh, Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, First published online May 2, 2011 http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/05/02/jopart.mur011.abstract2 See, http://www.policyconsensus.org/uncg/collaborativecompetencies.html3 See, The State of Collaboration in the Corps: A Field Perspective, Appendix B “Literature Review on Components of Collaborative Capacity in the Water Resources, Planning and Management Area, SRA, 2008


2. What are the benefits of developing collaborative capacities within agencies and organizations and among agencies and organizations involved in collaboration?

3. What are the benefits to UNCG members of developing tools and skills to provide collaborative organizational and agency assessments that can measure capacity and facilitate processes and training to help build collaborative capacity?

4. What is the best way to conceptualize the organizational components of collaborative capacity? Do we utilize the same component organization as the Guide to Collaborative Competencies? What are other ways collaborative capacity has been conceptualized? E.g. The SRA work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recommended the following elements: Political leadership/authority and empowerment to use collaboration where appropriate; Knowledge, skills, and abilities; Time and resources; Institutional procedures that reward use of these strategies; and Organizational culture.

5. What are the range of collaborative capacity building strategies we should consider that target the organizational components of collaborative capacity?

6. What do we know about and what guidance can we offer about which work best under various circumstances?

B. Guidance Document Format

A guidance document draft outline will be developed in advance of the April 2012 WG conference call.

January 20, 2012 WG Comments on Format and Scope

The group reviewed again the possible boundaries for the effort and agreed that the Workgroup should seek to approach this effort focusing on practical guidance to public/private/NGO organizations and managers on developing collaborative capacity within their organizations. This should be viewed with an understanding that these become important for organizations due to drivers (partners, stakeholders) that are external to the organization. The Working Group agreed to keep an open mind as to both the internal and external conditions and opportunities and drivers to develop collaborative capacity within an organization or agency.

The Work Group agreed that the Guidance document should have a range of possible strategies, approaches and examples for addressing each of the collaborative capacity components. “The guide we are cooking up should include a range of strategies that an agency might choose to use in developing collaborative capacity in a more systematic way, i.e. one size doesn’t fit all.” They also suggested that there should be tools and guidance


on both how to conduct collaborative capacity assessments and how to establish and implement evaluation and measurement of the efforts.

We should seek to consider different organizational circumstances and contexts. In the November meeting the group suggested strategies might be framed in terms of challenges, impediments and opportunities for each of the components of the conceptual framework. The development of a literature review on developing collaborative capacity plus those drawn from professional experience and examples should inform these tested strategies. The NEPA Collaboration Handbook (posted on the wiki site) http://www.ecr.gov/pdf/Collaboration_in_NEPA_Oct_2007.pdf, might offer an approach to framing guidance on strategies. On the November conference call, the participants also discussed the importance of including examples of challenges and strategies throughout the guide (as part of the body or as sidebars).

In terms of a format for guidance, Shari Shaftlein FHA/USDOT suggested we look at the online organization of Transportation for Communities - Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) http://www.transportationforcommunities.com/ TCAPP is a decision support tool, built from the experiences of transportation partners and stakeholders, which provides how-to information when it is most needed to improve how transportation planners and decision makers develop, prioritize, and inform transportation plans and projects. “This represents the Transportation sector's effort to mainstream collaboration in all Planning and Project Development Decisions and incorporate several years and millions of dollars of research products produced via SHRPII http://www.trb.org/StrategicHighwayResearchProgram2SHRP2/Blank2.aspx with a focus on capacity (in Transportation terms - new roads).”

C. Definitions

1. DEFINITIONAL: WHAT COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY? WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE AND COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY? WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COLLABORATIVE COMPETENCIES AND COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY?

What is collaborative capacity?

Collaborative capacity is the ability of organizations to enter into, develop, and sustain intra and inter-organizational systems in pursuit of collective and shared outcomes and goals.4 4 A capacity for collaboration enhances the probability of mission completion


What is the relationship between collaborative governance and collaborative capacity? Over the last two decades, a new strategy termed ‘‘collaborative governance’’ has developed. Collaborative governance takes as its starting point the idea that working together creates more lasting, effective solutions. "Governance" is the process by which public ends and means are identified, agreed upon, and pursued. This is different than "government," which relates to the specific jurisdiction in which authority is exercised. "Governance" is a broader term and encompasses both formal and informal systems of relationships and networks for decision-making and problem solving.5

This mode of governance focuses on public issues and brings multiple stakeholders from different sectors together in common forum to engage in consensus-oriented solution seeking, problem solving and decision-making:

“Collaborative governance is therefore a type of governance in which public and private actors work collectively in distinctive ways, using particular processes, to establish laws and rules for the provision of public goods… It is a governing arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets.”6

It has been described as a concept that addresses the process of establishing, steering, facilitating, operating, and monitoring cross-sector organizational arrangements to address public policy problems that cannot be easily addressed by a single organization or the public sector alone. These arrangements are often characterized by “joint efforts with reciprocal expectations and voluntary participation among formally autonomous entities, from two or more sectors —public, for profit, and nonprofits —in order to leverage (build on) the unique attributes and resources of

and goal achievement by leveraging dispersed and diverse networked resources. (Hansen & Nohria, 2004). Collaborative capacity, as it relates to interagency collaboration, resonates in the work of a number of academics and practitioners (e.g., Bardach, 1998; Huxham, 1996; Mowery, Oxley & Silverman, 1996; Seidman, 1970).5 6 Ansell and Gash JPART 18:543–571 2008


each.”7

What is the relationship between collaborative competencies and collaborative capacity?

Collaborative competencies focus on the individual’s capacity for and mastery of effective collaboration. Collaborative capacity focuses on the organization’s network for support of collaborative efforts both within and beyond the organization. The UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies was focused on guiding public managers interested in improving their staff’s collaborative competence through continuing education and training. A guide focusing on collaborative capacity would offer managers and leaders guidance on how to address and facilitate political leadership/authority and empowerment to use collaboration where appropriate, investments of time and resources, the development of institutional procedures that reward use of collaborative strategies and review and changes regarding organizational culture and collaboration. D. Benefits of Developing Collaborative Capacity

2. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING COLLABORATIVE CAPACITIES WITHIN AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS AND AMONG AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN COLLABORATION?

The benefits of developing collaborative capabilities within agencies and organizations include: cost savings through the transfer of smart practices, better decision making as a result of advice and information obtained from colleagues, enhanced capacity for collective action by dispersed units, and innovation through the cross-pollination of ideas and recombination of scarce resources. (Need citations for these benefits)

II. THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT GUIDE

3. WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO CONCEPTUALIZE THE ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENTS OF COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY?

7

Daniel Mazmanian & Shui-Yan Tang, USC


#5 WHAT ARE THE RANGE OF COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY BUILDING STRATEGIES WE SHOULD CONSIDER THAT TARGET THE ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENTS OF COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY?

#6 WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT AND WHAT GUIDANCE CAN WE OFFER ABOUT WHICH WORK BEST UNDER VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES?

In 2008, as part of a project focusing on helping the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) assess its capacity to use collaborative strategies in carrying out its mission in the water resources planning and management arena, DuPraw undertook a literature review to identify the components of collaborative capacity from an organizational and “systems” point of view. DuPraw and the USACE team defined “collaborative capacity” as “the ability of organizations to enter into, develop, and sustain interorganizational systems in pursuit of collective outcomes”; fostering collaborative capacity requires “systematic attention, resources, commitment, and opportunities for interaction” (Hocevar, Thomas and Jansen, 2006). “Building collaborative capacity,” say Hocevar and colleagues, An organization that has a robust collaborative capacity is able to “learn, experiment, and adapt creatively to threats and opportunities” (Innes and Booher, 2003).

The team defined “system” as a “set of interrelated components, acting with a common purpose, that exchanges information and energy with its environment”; further: (1) systems are comprised of subsystems; (2) system activities can transform the system into another state; (3) systems have self-regulatory and adaptive mechanisms; and (4) systems smust function within a particular context (Diamond and McDonald 1996). In large, non-linear systems, changes to one subsystem can radically alter the way in which the whole system functions (Anderson 1999). Each component of a system (such as a branch of a federal agency) may have its own unique role and culture, but each depends on the effective functioning of the other system components for the overall success of the organization (Costantino and Merchant 1996).

DuPraw’s findings, published in the 2011 in the USACE report, The State of Collaboration in the Corps: A Field Perspective,” suggested that there are five inter-dependent components to such a system: (1) Political Leadership, Authority, and Empowerment; (2) Individual Knowledge, Skills and Abilities; (3) Time and Resources; (4) Institutional Procedures; and (5) Organizational Culture. Each of these is briefly defined below; a more detailed discussion can be found in the 2011 USACE report mentioned above.


Political leadership, authority and empowerment -- The authority to encourage collaboration, reprogram budgets to support it, and to implement resulting decisions, including monitoring and evaluation (Jones 2005). Political support is needed for cross-project and inter-agency activities, including training and discussion forums (Interagency Initiative to Foster Collaborative Problem Solving and Environmental Conflict Resolution, Briefing Report for Federal Department Leadership 2004 (revised 2005)). Leaders need to able to advocate for the explain collaboration and its benefits, and encourage ongoing learning about how to do it well (Foster-Fishman et al.). Those initiating collaborative projects must, among other things, have interpersonal networks they can tap at all levels of their organizations, and all participants the authority and accountability to negotiate and make decisions on behalf of their respective organizations (Hocevar, Thomas, and Jansen (2006).

Knowledge, skills, and abilities – The USACE team used the knowledge, skills and abilities (KSAs) shown in Appendix 1. It is a compilation of KSAs used by the Departments of Defense, Interior and Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as several additional KSAs derived from DuPraw’s literature review.

Time and Resources – In the environmental / public policy realm, collaborative projects are frequently multi-year initiatives, entailing many meetings and much in-house; related time-consuming activities can include budgeting, research, implementation, monitoring and evaluation (Koontz et al. 2004). Having a source of dedicated resources contributes to success (Hocevar, Thomas, and Jansen, 2006). Resources are not limited to funding, but include human and technical resources (Koontz et al., 2004).

Institutional Procedures – official ways of carrying out the organization’s operations, including developing leadership commitment, establishing policies, rules, norms and practices; and obtaining resources and cooperation (Imperial 2005). Most organizations also have institutional procedures pertaining to communication with various audiences and methods of fostering external awareness (e.g., interactions with politicians, public agencies at various levels of governance, and branch offices).


Organizational Culture – Organizational culture reflects a shared worldview, ideas of what is right and wrong, priorities and values (Goldberg 2008). Thus, it has a profound impact on the way its personnel engage in collaborative endeavors. The following organizational attributes may contribute to an organization’s collaborative capacity include adaptability (Making Community Coalitions Work 1993) and resiliency (Innes and Booher 2003). Those that may undermine collaborative capacity include:

o Minimization of collaborative activities; risk aversion and lack of trust among participating agencies (How to Engage Low-Literacy and Limited-English-Proficiency Populations in Transportation Decision making, 2006);

o Belief that regulations are inflexible; reputation for being unreliable or untrustworthy; conflicts in missions of internal divisions; difficulty managing expectations of other key players (Creighton 2008); and

o Long-held, highly entrenched and polarized positions; resistance to change; lack of a visible champion for collaboration; and turf issues (Imperial 2005).

In the winter of 2010/2011, DuPraw began working with the US Forest Service (USFS), helping the agency develop systematic methods of fostering its collaborative capacity. USFS is recognizing the vital importance of collaborative capacity in effectively implementing numerous agency-wide strategic initiatives. Its new planning rule is a key driver, as implementation of the rule requires expanded use of collaboration; however, the agency recognizes that collaborative competency will also serve its efforts to respond to climate change, to integrate its resource inventory, monitoring, and assessment functions into a cohesive system, and many more efforts. The USFS reviewed the framework for collaborative capacity developed by the USACE team, and adapted it for its own use; they conceptualized their “system” for enabling collaborative capacity as having five components also, but a slightly different list, as follows: (1) Leadership; (2) Institutional Culture; (3) Relationships; (4) Policies and Practices for Implementing Them; and (5) Learning. Reviewing her work to date with USACE and USFS, DuPraw proposes a revised conceptual model for a generic system supporting collaborative capacity development that merges the frameworks used by these two agencies (see attached file for Figure 1). The generic model has six components – those found in the USACE model plus “relationships.” Those involved in developing the USFS model felt very strongly that relationships were the “currency” of collaboration. Thus, in the updated generic model, relationships are at the center of the system, surrounded by the original five components from the


USACE model. It appears to DuPraw that the other four components of the USFS model are already represented in the USACE model, albeit labeled and arrayed slightly differently. It seems likely, and appropriate, that each organization working with a generic model will want to tailor it to meet their unique needs and to foster ownership in the tailored framework by those who need to use it.

January 20, 2012 WG Comments on Conceptual Framework

The participants discussed what was intended by the “relationship” component and agreed to retitle this “networks and relationships” to reflect the importance of networks, connections and relationships in effective collaborative work and establishing capacity. In the Forest Service this was


helpful in addressing the challenge of periodic leadership and management transitions.

The participants agreed going forward there needs to be:

Further clarification of the relationships and distinctions between and among the various components. For example how do networks and relationships factor into political leadership, authority and empowerment? Or how do “networking and relationships” connect with institutional procedures (related to staff turnover, overlaps and cross training).

Ideally, each component should be capable of formulating guidance on meeting challenges with tested strategies that can be illustrated with examples.

In order to build collaborative capacity in an organization, is it necessary to focus on all or each of the 6 components and/or is there a sequence of steps/components for an agency or organization to consider in addressing and building capacity?

Guidance might be provided on how to assess the strengths and weaknesses of an organizations networks and relationships.

Collaborative capacity in terms of networks and relationships may be something to draw upon even after you transition to another organization or another part of the organization.

Consider how organizational learning fits in the concept of collaborative capacity. It was suggested it might fit within each component. Bill Logue offered to circulate a recent Stanford study on the topic http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_challenge_of_organizational_learning

REFERENCES

Anderson, Philip. 1999. Complexity Theory and Organization Science. Organization Science 10 (3).Bean, Martha, Larry Fisher, and Mike Eng. 2007. Assessment in Environmental and Public Policy Conflict Resolution: Emerging Theory, Patterns of Practice, and a Conceptual Framework. Conflict Resolution Quarterly 24 (4).Constantino, Cathy, and Christina Sickles Merchant. 1996. Designing Conflict Management Systems: A Guide to Crating Productive and Healthy Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Creighton, James. 2008. Institutional Barriers to Implementation of Collaborative Planning: Submitted to the Institute for Water Resources, US Army Corps of Engineers.Diamond, Louise, and John McDonald. 1996. Multi-Track Diplomacy: A Systems Approach to Peace. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.Foster-Fishman, Pennie G., Shelby L. Berkowitz, David W. Lounsbury, Stephanie Jacobson, and Nicole A. Allen. 2001. Building Collaborative Capacity in Community


http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_challenge_of_organizational_learning

http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_challenge_of_organizational_learning

Coalitions: A Review and Integrative Framework. American Journal of Community Psychology 29 (2).Goldberg, Rachel M. 2008. Learning from Cross-Cultural Practitioners. In ACR Environment and Policy Section Conference: Nurturing Conflict Resolution Skills, Practices and Programs Amid Institutional Changes. Tucson, AZ.Hocevar, Susan Page, Gail Fann Thomas, and Erik Jansen. 2006. "Building CollaborativeCapacity: An Innovative Strategy for Homeland Security Preparedness." In Innovation Through Collaboration - Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams. Vol. 12, 255-274. Elsevier Ltd. ISSN: 1572-0977/doi:10.1016/S1572-0977(06)12010-5.How to Engage Low-Literacy and Limited-English-Proficiency Populations in Transportation Decisionmaking. 2006. Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.Imperial, Mark T. 2005. Using Collaboration as Governance Strategy: Lessons from Six Watershed Management Programs. Administration & Society 37 (3).Imperial, Mark T., and Timothy Hennessey. 2000. Environmental Governance in Watersheds: The Role of Collaboration In 8th Biennial Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property (IASCP). Bloomington, IN.Innes, Judith, and David Booher. 2003. The Impact of Collaborative Planning on Governance Capacity. In Institute for Urban & Regional Development Working Paper Series. Berkeley: University of California.Jones, Robert M. 2005. Leadership and Public Learning. In Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict: New Institutions for Collaborative Planning, edited by J. T. Scholz and B. Stiftel. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Koontz, Tomas, Toddi Steelman, JoAnn Carmin, Katrina Smith Korfmacher, Cassandra Moseley, and Craig Thomas. 2004. Collaborative Environmental Management: What Roles for Government? Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2011. The State of Collaboration in the Corps: A FieldPerspective. Published by USACE Conflict Resolution & Public Participation Center, May, 2011 (2011-CPC-R-04).


Appendix 18

Knowledge Skills and Abilities Supporting Collaborative Capacity

INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND ABILITIES

PARTNERING (Development of networks and alliances9)

Process-related KSAs- Uses democratic decision-

making style- Gather information effectively- Promotes power sharing- Develops shared vision among

participants Helps participants agree

on what partnering means in particular context

Identifies each participant’s contribution

- Establishes a tracking and reporting system to document progress

- Participates in external assessments and self-assesses capacity

KSAs related to Structuring Partnerships- Access to networks and

connections- Cultivates familiarity with the

capabilities and requirements of other participants in the collaborative

- Builds effective coalition infrastructure, connections to existing community institutions, and inter-organizational leadership

- Identifies interests and capable

8 Sources: numerous9 Definitions from OPM. Posted at https://www.opm.gov/ses/recruitment/ecq.asp



representatives- Clarifies boundaries of

participating organizations



PARTNERING (continued) Attitudes and Values- Maintains a diversity of

stakeholders and ideas to bring different perspectives and feed the tension that supports creativity, draw on a host of concepts when new approaches are needed

- Sees diversity as positive- Adheres to principles,

including: accountability openness informed commitment balanced, voluntary

representation group autonomy informed process

- Integrates different types of knowledge

- Recognizes and taps the different skills of collaborations’ members

- Builds inclusive, broad-based involvement in collaborative efforts

- Trustworthy and able to trust- Committed to collaborative

initiative- Self-motivated and

persevering

INFLUENCING/NEGOTIATING - Tests “what ifs”- Understands and incorporates

needs and constraints of specific groups (tribes, populations with low/limited English proficiency)

- Serves as bridge between the group and their respective organizations


- Persuades others- Builds consensus through give

and take- Gains cooperation from others

to obtain information and accomplish goals.



INTERPERSONAL SKILLS10 - Models open communication- Manages interactions between

the parties- Expresses empathy- Alleviates stress- Develops positive working

climate- Socializes new participants to

norms, values and routines of collaborative processes

- Works effectively with those from backgrounds other than yours

- Understands how prejudices (of self and others) influence the development of understanding

- Improves understanding between cultures and economic group

- Treats others with courtesy, sensitivity, and respect

- Considers and responds appropriately to the needs and feelings of different people in different situations

CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION - Employs conflict as an engine of creativity

- Encourages efforts to develop new options for resolution

- Engages in technology transfer to share strengths

- Develops new insights into situations

- Questions conventional

10 “Interpersonal skills” is one of six “fundamental competencies” in the Office of Personnel Management’s Executive Core Qualifications for members of the Senior Executive Service. Posted at http://www.opm.gov/ses/recruitment/competencies.asp


approaches- Encourages new ideas and

innovations- Designs and implement new or

cutting-edge programs/processes



EXTERNAL/POLITICAL AWARENESS11 - Understands and keeps up-to-date on local, national, and international policies and trends that affect the organization and shape stakeholders’ views

- Aware of the organization’s impact on the external environment.

- Understands power dynamics, and recognizes many different forms of power

- Recognizes when a project is in trouble

- Engages in risk analysis- Engages in strategic thinking- Manages political

expectations- Assesses the timing and scope

of the collaboration- Secures political

support/commitment- Taps the capacities of the

community- Uses guest speaker series,

public meetings, and research to communicate scientific information to other stakeholders

- Considers constraints of the Federal Advisory Committee Act

- Engages in creative efforts to attract and secure political support

- Performs forward and backward mapping to identify potential constraints on joint action and identify possible supportive coalitions or

11 Authors added “political” to category heading to provide further clarification.


sources of political conflict that would impede collaboration

- Promotes consistent levels of knowledge of environmental conflict resolution by senior leaders and project managers to foster strong situation awareness of the implications of emerging conflicts and the conditions that signal the need for environmental conflict resolution


ENTREPRENEURSHIP - Creates and builds effective programs

- Engages in creative efforts to attract and secure financial support

- Has knowledge of financial resources, funding opportunities and mechanisms

- Positions the organization for future success by identifying new opportunities

- Builds the organization by developing or improving products or services

- Takes calculated risks to accomplish organizational objectives

PROBLEM SOLVING - Functions as a peer problem solver

- Manages rate of change and problem solving – regulate disequilibrium, discomfort, impatience and conflict

- Recognizes the value in integrating findings to achieve


a more accurate and useful picture of the situation

- Identifies and analyzes problems

- Weighs relevance and accuracy of information

- Generate and evaluates alternative solutions, and makes recommendations

CONFLICT MANAGEMENT - Able to accurately assess conflict situation and determine most effective approach for addressing it

- Aware of broad range of possible conflict resolution approaches to draw upon

- Able to match appropriate conflict resolution approach to specific conflict

- Able to work with others to design effective consensus-building process

- Understands how to build consensus among multiple parties

- Runs meetings effectively & efficiently


CONFLICT MANAGEMENT (continued)

- Reaches out to diverse stakeholders

- Builds agreement among affected stakeholders to engage in good faith

- Works to develop and agree on shared ground rules for participation

- Creates a game plan and group covenants

- Concentrates on relationships first


- Creates “jointly owned” knowledge

- Organizes “sidebars” (committees or workgroups that address complex topics)

- Generates multiple problem definitions

- Creates options to resolve conflicts

- When necessary, acts from position of neutrality

- Talks about “values”- Acknowledges different kinds

of knowledge- Explores validity and accuracy

with care- Creates a “public learning”

culture- Is transparent about decision-

making- Pays attention to power- Encourages creative tension

and differences of opinions- Anticipates and takes steps to

prevent counter-productive confrontations

- Manages and resolves conflicts and disagreements in a constructive manner

PROJECT MANAGEMENT* - Consider whether the resources exist to undertake collaborative activities

- Reviews staffing and budgeting requests

- Institutionalizes interpersonal relationships to make success less dependent on individuals and more on existing structure

- Effectively manages own time & that of team members to accomplish tasks by agreed-upon deadlines



LEADERSHIP* - Inspires political and personal commitment and action

- Works to sustain hope and encourage participation in the consensus building process

- Creates a sense of ownership of the problem and underscore importance of work

- Encourages participants to play active and engaged roles in shaping public action

- Sets a holistic strategy- Encourages full participation

by senior-level executives- Creates a more inclusive

culture that allows for more effective communication

- Reconciles competing statutory objectives

SUBSTANTIVE KNOWLEDGE* - Knowledge of the water resource issues under discussion (empirical or experiential)

- Knowledge of legal and regulatory parameters and constraints related to issues under discussion

- Understanding of institutional context in which participants are operating (e.g., how a particular agency works)

- Understanding of policy making processes related to issues under discussion

- Other relevant types of expertise (e.g. modeling, engineering, hydrology, ecology, aquatic biology)



CULTURAL COMPETENCY (this category added by authors)

- Understands the cultural biases in the collaborative processes in use

- Develops new processes to reflect the diverse cultures of those involved

- Tailors methods and approaches to parties’ cultural norms

- Recognizes different ways of knowing, perceiving and behaving

- Engages in constant monitoring and adjustment throughout the course of the process to ensure that individuals of all backgrounds can equally participate

- Recognizes the cultural assumptions implicit in all aspects of collaboration (setting, process, participation, mindset, role of tradition, form of resolution)

- Recognizes when ideas from “other” cultures are being ignored, dismissed or disparaged

- Welcomes all modes of inquiry and analysis

- Ensures that all types of information are available to everyone involved in a collaboration

- Helps build mutually framed questions with other stakeholders

- Engages in respectful questioning

- Recognizes and responds to specific modes of communication by Native


American tribes- Engages populations with low

or limited English proficiency


III. COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY INITIATIVES January 20, 2012 WG Comments on CC Initiatives

The WG reviewed and thanked the authors of the 5 examples of collaborative capacity efforts captured to date. These are being developed for possible use as strategy examples in the text and possibly as an appendix to the guidance document. Bob agreed to solicit more examples from the UNCG centers. Maria agreed to see if there could be a write up of a ACOE/NOAA collaborative leadership workshop in a coastal community. Shari presented the TCAPP effort (see #3 above) as a potential collaborative capacity effort or to demonstrate some collaborative capacity strategies. Bob agreed to share the template with Share, Ruth and Mary to see if they can describe it as an initiative.

List of Examples1. COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY ASSESSMENT INITIATIVE, US

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS (Maria and Marci)2. US FOREST SERVICE “EMPOWERING COLLABORATIVE

STEWARDSHIP” PROJECT (Deb & Marci)3. SIERRA CASCADES DIALOG GROUP (Deb)4. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT CAPACITY BUILDING (BILL LOGUE) 5. ALBERTA COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE

(CHRIS CARLSON)

1. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY ASSESSMENT INITIATIVE,

Lead UNCG Member or other Practitioner: Marci DuPraw & Maria Placht

Organization/Sector: (Public, Private, NGO, combination): Public – U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Context:

Given the current environment of diminishing resources, increasing complexity, shifting priorities, and greater pressure to integrate across multiple disciplines, agencies, and jurisdictions, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) deems collaboration as critically important for achieving its mission in the 21st century. Solutions to today’s problems require reaching out to those with different authorities, perspectives, and resources to solve the various dimensions of these


problems. In 2008, the Corps established a Conflict Resolution and Public Participation Center of Expertise. The initial project of the Center was to understand the capacity of the Corps in areas relating to collaboration, conflict resolution, and public participation, so that Center staff would better grasp where the Corps’ strengths and weaknesses lay and thus where they should focus their efforts. The information collected during this baseline study gave the Center a starting point and a roadmap to guide its early initiatives.

Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity initiative (aims/objectives):

The “Collaborative Capacity Assessment Initiative,” began in the summer of 2008, to:

Assess the Agency’s current capacity to collaborate with external stakeholders on water resources planning and management objectives;

Elicit suggestions for capacity enhancements from the field; and Formulate priority recommendations for how to enhance the

Corps’ collaborative capacity.

The initiative defines “collaborate” as the multitude of ways the Corps seeks to involve and work constructively with external stakeholders. This includes, but is not limited to, public participation, interagency and intergovernmental partnering, collaborative problem solving, consensus-building, and conflict resolution. This effort was led by the Corps’ Conflict-resolution & Public-participation Center (CPC) with assistance from CPC field representatives in each Corps Division and with support from SRA International, Inc. (SRA).

The Initiative resulted in thirteen key recommendations, organized by what we determined to be the five components of an organizational framework that would effectively support, enable, and reward the use of collaboration(institutional procedures; leadership, authority, and empowerment; individual skill sets; time and resources; and organizational culture).. Using a systems approach to assess the Corps’ capacity to collaborate enabled the identification of the holistic changes needed to move the Corps toward a culture of collaboration.

Process Steps Summary:

The Collaborative Capacity Assessment Initiative was a two-year project that followed this process:1. Convene a diverse internal/external 13-person Review Group to

ensure that the capacity assessment initiative meets USACE needs;


2. Collect input from members of the Review Group regarding the goals and objectives of this assessment, anticipated challenges to achieving success; existing assessment tools and feedback to develop a USACE-specific tool; and proposed methods for analyzing and documenting results;

3. Develop a capacity assessment tool/survey that will assist the Corps in assessing its ability to conduct partnerships and to develop collaborative working relationships;

4. Use this tool to conduct a capacity assessment, which occurred via one-day, facilitated workshops in each of the eight Corps Divisions. In advance of each workshop, Chiefs and Deputy Chiefs from that Division completed the tool, as well as others identified as having particular experience and expertise in collaboration. This assessment targets the leaders of each Division because it is they who best exemplify the collaborative capacity of the Corps. 230 Corps staff at the Division and District level completed the tool and most of them participated in one of the eight workshops. During the workshops, participants presented barriers and enablers to successful collaboration via a series of case studies, discussed the survey results and implications, and recommended methods that Corps staff and Corps Headquarters could use to improve collaborative capacity.

5. Periodically elicit input from the Review Group regarding the proposed agenda for the Division workshops; the draft findings report; how this initiative is carried out, what is working well, and where mid-course corrections might be needed; and “next steps” once this assessment is complete.

6. Use the results of the survey and workshops to write a report identifying areas that need the Corps’ attention. This report focused on steps the Corps can take to maintain collaborative strengths and enhance those areas that they would like to develop further, particularly for water resources planning and management.

Current Status:

In January, 2011, following the completion of the Initiative, CPC presented the 13 recommendations to Corps senior leaders in for their review and direction. Many of the recommendations were identified as overlapping with/relating to CPC or other Corps initiatives. CPC was directed to synch those recommendations with the leads for the other initiatives. Seven of the 13 recommendations fall into this category and are currently being implemented in part or in full. One recommendation has been implemented by CPC in full, which is to “Ensure USACE personnel can readily access facilitators and mediators to assist them with collaborative processes.” Four


recommendations are not yet being implemented as senior leaders decided that no new funds would be allocated to implement the recommendations not related to current Corps efforts. One final recommendation will not be implemented as Corps senior leaders decided it was not appropriate/relevant.

Outcomes/Achievements:

The outcomes of this Initiative are still unfolding. Achievements to-date:

1. Ensuring Corps personnel can readily access facilitators and mediators to assist them with collaborative processes. This was achieved in part through a roster of internal facilitators expanded during the workshop meetings by identifying existing Corps facilitators.

2. Establishing a Collaboration and Public Participation Community of Practice. This community serves to foster relationships, connect people doing similar work, raise the profile of collaboration and public participation as critical to achieving the Corps’ mission, and share best practices and lessons learned.

3. Providing field perspectives and information to CPC regarding the state of collaboration in the Corps and ideas for how CPC can improve this capacity. As a baseline study, the information collected during this effort was invaluable in terms of educating CPC staff of the needs of the field and highlighting areas important to focus on in future work. The information collected during these two years continues to inform and guide the direction of CPC every day, making their work more relevant and useful to the Corps.

4. Providing data and input to training courses – to both inform current course content and develop new courses, such as the basics of facilitation and collaborative leadership.

5. Collecting several conflict resolution or public participation case studies from each Corps Division as a starting place for developing a database to collect case studies and document lessons learned and best practices that will be developed by/shared with the Community of Practice and the broader Corps.

6. Improving understanding of the relationship and intersection of conflict resolution and public participation with two other communities of practice – Tribal Relations and Public Affairs. Relationships were fostered with these other Corps Communities of Practice that have promoted learning across important parts of the Corps that interact the most with external stakeholders.


2. US FOREST SERVICE “EMPOWERING COLLABORATIVE STEWARDSHIP” PROJECT

Lead UNCG Member or other Practitioner: Marci DuPraw and Deb Whitall (subgroup members) & numerous other in-house and external collaboration “practitioners” (depending on how one defines that term)

Organization/Sector: (Public, Private, NGO, combination): Combination


USFS is recognizing vital importance of collaborative capacity in effectively implementing numerous agency-wide strategic initiatives. New planning rule is a key driver, as its implementation calls for expanded use of collaboration; however, the agency recognizes that collaborative competency will also serve its efforts to respond to climate change, to integrate its resource inventory, monitoring, and assessment functions into a cohesive system, and many more efforts underway.


To systematically foster the collaborative capacity of the US Forest Service, agency-wide.


The effort began in Winter of 2010/2011 with a convening assessment, which laid the groundwork for a 2-day workshop to frame up the effort. This workshop gave rise to 4 “Dimension Groups” (work groups each focusing on fostering a different dimension of collaborative capacity) and a Coordinating Committee. The boundaries of the Dimension Groups were porous, and their coordinators welcomed all comers, internal and external; however, the Coordinating Committee made a conscious decision to start somewhat low-key, given the staff capacity the agency was able to assign to the effort initially, so communication about the opportunity was mostly word-of-mouth until recently. In just 7 months (April – October, 2011), this network of stakeholders jointly developed and implemented a Near-Term Strategy for Fostering the Civic and Citizen Engagement Capacity of the U.S. Forest Service. In November, 2011, they held a two-part


webinar to share the work products they had developed to foster the agency’s collaborative capacity and to elicit input about next steps.

Current Status:

The Coordinating Committee was delighted with the enthusiasm engendered by the November webinar, and is about to reconvene to review the feedback received and work out the game plan for fostering a community of practice to support ongoing development of the agency’s collaborative capacity.


To date, this effort has resulted in the development and implementation of a Near-Term Strategy for Fostering the Civic and Citizen Engagement Capacity of the U.S. Forest Service. Work products that are now available to support the agency’s use of collaboration include: A brief primer, entitled, “Collaboration: Getting Started”; A FACA “Easy Button” (guidelines to demystify FACA so that it

doesn’t present an obstacle and staff know how to collaborate within its parameters);

Materials to guide employee transitions in a manner that helps employees and communities sustain relationships and collaborative momentum;

Electronic collaboration tools to maximize the benefit of collaboration when it must be done remotely;

After-Action Review Tools (to enable the agency to learn from each collaborative effort they undertake);

A newly-redesigned Partnership Resource Center website full of resources to support collaboration; and

An initial draft map of FS-related collaboratives.

3. SIERRA CASCADES DIALOG GROUP

Lead UNCG Member or other Practitioner: Debra Whitall, PhD Social Scientist, Pacific Southwest Region, USDA Forest Service

Organization/Sector: (Public, Private, NGO, combination): Combination


As an outgrowth of a 2010 conference co-sponsored by the Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service and University of California


on Pre- and Post Wildfire Forest Management for Restoration and Resiliency, stakeholders’ interest in furthering discussion on key topical areas led to the formation of a new collaborative working group in California: the Sierra Cascades Dialogue Group.The intent of the Sierra Cascades Dialogue is to hold regular conversations among engaged stakeholders on a range of issues across the Sierra Nevada and the Cascades. The term "stakeholder" refers to any individual or organization that has a direct interest in public lands. This would include the Forest Service as the convener.


The dialogue centers on the future of the Sierra Nevada and Cascades, with a focus on the national forests in this bioregion. Dialogues provide an opportunity for learning, shared meaning, aligned actions, mutual respect and understanding different perspectives. The goals of the dialogue are to:

Bring together public and private land managers to grapple with an “all lands” approach to planning and conservation, beginning with ecological restoration. In this case, “all lands” refers to all land within the Sierra Nevada bioregion irrespective of jurisdictional or ownership boundaries.

Lay the foundation for Science Synthesis, Assessments, and Forest Plan Revisions.

Develop stakeholder collaborative capacity to address challenging, complex issues on a large, landscape scale.

Create shared responsibility and understanding. Build relationships and trust among all stakeholders through

interest-based problem solving techniques.


The Sierra Cascades Dialogue is based on best practices in the fields of public participation12 and collaborative policy. A professional facilitator with advanced training in the field of conflict analysis and resolution and an active mediation practice in natural resources planning facilitates the sessions. The facilitator works with senior Forest Service policy staff, including its social scientist, to design the sessions in cooperation with a twenty-member steering committee that is representative of all stakeholder interests.

12For resources, see the International Association for Public Participation at http://www.iap2.org/


http://www.iap2.org/

Current Status:

The dialogue typically has about 140 participants representing a range of interest groups such as county governments, environmental organizations, fire safe councils, industry, land managers, including Forest Service staff and leadership, private landowners, recreation groups, rural communities, scientists, state government, tribes, water agencies, and youth. All dialogues are open to the public, and while participation shifts, a core group attends regularly. The organizers have committed to and actively recruit to realize age, cultural, geographic and socio-economic diversity among participants. In addition to sending Sierra Cascades Dialogue announcements to a large email list serve, a website (http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/SierraCascadesDialog/) contains announcements, background reading materials and summaries of each dialogue.


The dialogue is in its infant stages, yet is grappling with topics of significance to the Sierra Nevada bioregion, including ecological restoration, improving social and economic conditions in rural communities, ecosystem services and watershed health. In November 2010, 140 participants attended the first Sierra Cascade Dialogue Session on ecological restoration. In its second session (February, 2011), the dialogue explored values, attitudes, and interests and the tie to interest-based problem solving. The third session (October 2011) brought together local elected officials, nongovernmental and governmental organizations alike, social scientists, small business owners and industry representatives to discuss economic and social well-being within the context of a sustainable environment. The most recent dialogue (December, 2011) brought together members of the research community and stakeholders to identify key questions to be addressed through a science synthesis to support a Sierra Nevada bioregional assessment and forest plan revisions.Agreements and understanding achieved through the Sierra Cascades Dialogue Group inform Forest Service decisions. Outcomes are shared with the Regional Leadership Team and other staff of the Forest Service (the Regional Leadership Team includes the Regional Forester, Deputy Regional Foresters, key regional leaders, and the Forest Supervisors).

4. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT CAPACITY BUILDING (Status 1/18/2012)


http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/SierraCascadesDialog/

Lead UNCG Member or other Practitioner: Massachusetts Office of Public Collaboration, Susan Jeghelian, Executive Director, Loraine Della Porta Deputy Directory and Bill Logue, Senior Affiliate

Organization/Sector: (Public, Private, NGO, combination): Public


Public engagement and collaborative capacity building knowledge, capacity and by using an inclusive and transparent internal process at MassDOT to effectively model interaction with the public and organized stakeholder community to participate in decision making on transportation issues and effectively linking these to traditional/required decision making contexts in the transportation sector.


The Massachusetts Office of Public Collaboration (MOPC) will assist the Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT) launch an agency-wide policy development and capacity building initiative to implement effective public engagement and collaboratively re-design the stakeholder engagement process for MassDOT and its Divisions across all of their programs and projects. The long-term goal of this project is to build capacity and infrastructure for authentic and effective public engagement within MassDOT’s Divisions and programs to implement MassDOT’s commitment to engaged, transparent, and accountable government. In the shorter term, MOPC will assist in developing and implementing specific stakeholder engagement processes for certain projects within the Accelerated Bridge Program (ABP) and other MassDOT initiatives. MOPC will assist with development of public engagement policies and protocols, internal capacity building, project implementation and coaching. More specifically within the ABP, the work will address multi-modal use opportunities and improvements that are consistent with MassDOT Green Communities Act and will allow for the MOPC team to provide direct facilitation services on ABP public engagement processes and to assist with implementation and with mentoring MassDOT staff.MOPC’s role is to ensure that the collaborative structures and processes are developed and conducted in an unbiased environment suitable for discussion, deliberation and decision-making. MOPC will also ensure compliance with best practices for collaborative governance and public engagement processes, including openness


and transparency, impartiality and neutrality, and equity and inclusiveness.


For system design:1. Assessment of current systems, knowledge and awareness in

relation to best practices. Identification to challenges, internal and external barriers to collaboration around roles / responsibilities/ decision making / communication that impact public engagement.

2. Policy/protocol development including assessment criteria and best practices for equitable and inclusive stakeholder engagement.

3. Internal implementation and design – orientation and training modules for roll out, identification of pilot projects.

4. Capacity Building Implementation – create training program and internal training team for Highway Division and agency-wide implementation.

5. Project Implementation – complete demonstration projects

Current Status:

Pilot collaborative process, Longfellow Bridge Task Force, successfully reach agreement on recommendations for inclusion in Environmental Assessment. Initiating system design/capacity building and identifying additional projects for pilot/coaching MassDOT staff.

Outcomes/Achievements: (to date)

1) Thirty-two member Longfellow Bridge Task Force composed of stakeholders and chaired by a community leader was convened by MassDOT. Met 9 times and arrived at recommendations for configurations of space for multi-modal (vehicles, public rail transit, pedestrian and cycling) use in renovation of the historic bridge connecting Boston and Cambridge.2)Grant and MassDOT funding received for system design. MOPC project team, two technical advisors and external evaluator selected

Expected outcomes:

MassDOT Public Engagement Policy and Protocol, MassDOT implementation team and capacity creation, several pilot projects.


5. ALBERTA COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (CHRIS CARLSON)

(To be turned into a template example)

The Province of Alberta has a Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Municipal Dispute Resolution Services is a program within that Department. They have launched a Collaborative Governance Initiative (CGI) to improve municipal business and inter-municipal relations. The program gives municipal leaders an opportunity to look internally and inter- municipally at their organizations and find creative, locally-relevant ways to improve communication, better engage with internal and external stakeholders, and build better relationships. The program helps municipalities assess whether collaborative governance is appropriate and help convene the process and ensure all the prerequisites are in place. They also make grants available to municipalities to implement their collaborative efforts.PCI worked with the program and provided them with information to assist them in the design and development of a training program on collaborative governance for municipal officials. They provided a review of existing collaborative leadership training programs and discussed possible objectives and curricular components for the training program. A pilot program was then prepared and piloted.

IV. COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY LITERATURE REVIEW

January 20, 2012 WG Comments on CC Literature Review

Tina Nabatchi, in advance of the January 20 call, agreed to work on and compile and circulate an informal literature review building on and updating the 2008 literature review in the “State of Collaboration in the Corps” ACOE. http://uncgcollaborativecapacity.wikispaces.com/Collaborative+Capacity+Resource+Documents


http://uncgcollaborativecapacity.wikispaces.com/Collaborative+Capacity+Resource+Documents

http://uncgcollaborativecapacity.wikispaces.com/Collaborative+Capacity+Resource+Documents