Sharing a Vision Through Collaborative
Governance
Creating Washington County’s Transportation Safety
Action Plan
Matthew Jones
By, Kim Haughn
Portland State University
Executive Master of Public Administration
Cohort 2013
Advisor: Dr. Matt Jones
Table of Contents
Abstract ........................................................................................................................................ 3
Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 4
Background................................................................................................................................. 5
Literature Review ..................................................................................................................... 6
Goals and Objectives ............................................................................................................. 16
Research Methods ................................................................................................................. 17
Sampling ............................................................................................................................................. 17
Data collection .................................................................................................................................. 18
Measurement .................................................................................................................................... 18
Modeling ............................................................................................................................................. 19
Discussion ................................................................................................................................ 20
Areas for Future Research .................................................................................................. 31
Conclusion ................................................................................................................................ 32
Leadership Reflections ........................................................................................................ 33
References ................................................................................................................................ 37
Abstract
Collaborate governance is an effective means of bringing together public and
private partnerships in order to formulate a plan or policy intended for the greater
good of society. It can involve the sharing of various viewpoints, desires and
needs that address safety and livability for a community. Collaborative
governance will be essential to creating the very first Transportation Safety
Action Plan for Washington County. The Transportation Safety Action Plan will
have an overarching goal to reduce transportation-related serious injury and fatal
crashes on county roads. By way of a successful collaborative governance model
specifically designed for the creation of this Plan, the public and private partners
involved in its making can better develop agreed upon implementable action
items for the Plan. To come up with the action items, the group will need to build
a consensus through maintaining key elements of leadership, trust, cultural
competency and autonomy. Transportation officials can lead the effort in creating
the plan, but will need to rely on private and public partners to come up with
action items that can assist in meeting the Plan’s goal.
Introduction
Collaborative governance is a way to create a network of public and
private partnerships that can collectively take on wicked challenges by
brainstorming and problem solving in order to come up with an implementable
consensus. While the term collaborative governance has been deeply
researched by scholars worldwide, it is evident that there is no single model that
has been designed to be the absolute process that will fit the mold for every
challenge a public agency faces. However, collaborative governance as a
meaning is very beneficial to public agencies that need to bring together multiple
partners when creating plans or policies that are intended to benefit the greater
good of society.
Collaborative governance will be essential in creating Washington
County’s first Transportation Safety Action Plan (Plan). It will require a unique
collaborative process that will entail collective problem solving and joint decision
making from various stakeholders with differing interests in order for the Plan to
be a success. Achieving this goal is not as simple as it sounds. In order to come
up with a process unique for Washington County, it will require taking various
pieces of other collaborative governance models in order to create a hybrid
model that best suits the needs of the County that will ensure the Plan can be
properly pulled together, implementable and designed to produce desired
outcomes. The collaborative governance model will foster relationships with
existing and new partners that will maintain their own individual identity while also
working towards a shared vision to mutually conquer a rather large and important
goal of reducing transportation-related serious injury and fatal crashes on county
roads.
Transportation safety action plans are popping up across the nation at
various agency levels as we continue to see serious injury and fatal crashes
occur on roadways. Taking on the responsibility to reduce transportation-related
crashes is a task that transportation officials cannot do on their own. They must
recruit a variety of stakeholders including the general public in order to
accomplish this great endeavor. Transportation safety is a team effort. This team
will need to help create a culture of desiring safe roadways.
This paper will discuss the suggested collaborative governance model
uniquely designed for the creation of a Transportation Safety Action Plan for
Washington County. This model will hopefully become a resource for other local
county agencies or municipalities as well in order to help establish a foundational
framework for pulling together a stakeholder advisory committee that will help
ultimately achieve the Plan’s overall goal.
Background
A Transportation Safety Action Plan (Plan) is a plan created for a
governing agency that reviews serious injury and fatal crash data within the area
of that agency’s jurisdiction. It includes action items that are ideas developed with
intentions to reduce these statistics on our road system, primarily the most
common trending crash types. Clackamas County and Oregon Department of
Transportation (ODOT) both have existing transportation safety action plans and
several other local jurisdictions have plans of the same sort in the making
(Clackamas County, 2012; ODOT, 2011).
ODOT has had a Plan since 1995, which gets regularly updated. They are
currently commencing their fourth full rendition of their Plan. Clackamas County
recently completed their first Plan in 2012. They were the first county agency in
the state of Oregon to complete and formerly adopt a Transportation Safety
Action Plan (Clackamas County, 2012).
To create a Plan like this, the lead agency needs to pull together a variety
of stakeholders in order to address multiple perspectives relating to
transportation. Transportation officials cannot conquer this plan on their own. It
will require a unique collaborative governance model that incorporates best
practices for facilitation in order to keep on the path to successfully coming up
with action items for the Plan.
Literature Review
My research began with discussions among other agency staff and
consultants that have created a Transportation Safety Action Plan (Plan) or a
plan similar in type. As mentioned already, Clackamas County and Oregon
Department of Transportation (ODOT) both have created and adopted plans
(Clackamas County, 2012, ODOT, 2011). To name a few others, Clark County,
the City of Bend, west Vancouver, Arizona Department of Transportation, and
Ohio Department of Transportation also have similar plans that are either in the
works or nearing completion. Their plans were created by consultants local to the
Portland area that have an interest in creating Washington County’s
Transportation Safety Action Plan.
In my own quest to produce a Plan for the County, I’ve had opportunities
to discuss the making of these plans with various consultants: Kittelson and
Associates, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., DKS Associates, and HDR, Inc. These
consultants, who are somewhat familiar with transportation safety action plans,
have their own various ideas on collaborative governance modeling including
what they have found to be successful. The information I’ve gathered from them
has been very resourceful but includes a few gaps that need to be addressed for
Washington County based on the stakeholders that we need to include in the
creation of our Plan. Many of their models seem to lack the involvement of critical
stakeholders. There were also instances where the Plans were very data
analysis heavy and informative, but lacked in ways that actions can be taken by
various partners in order to address the crash data trends.
Fortunately, there is a great amount of literature available that discusses
collaborative governance and how it is imperative these days when governing
agencies need to problem solve issues that affect the communities they serve.
Interesting enough, most everything I’ve come across during my research
discloses right off that bat that there is not an ideal collaborative governance
model that provides the one-size-fits-all process needed to handle a challenge
that agency partners are collectively working on. “In its overuse, the term
‘collaboration’ has become a catchall to signify just about any type of inter-
organizational or inter-personal relationship, making it difficult for those seeking
to collaborate to put into practice or evaluate with certainty” (Gajda, 2004).
Not only is our County agency up against a wicked challenge of
successfully collaborating when creating a Transportation Safety Action Plan but
we also face the challenge of creating a unique collaborative governance model
that will help jumpstart the creation of the Plan and ensure it’s success and
sustainability. From the start, we must realize that “collaboration is a journey not
a destination” (Gajda, 2004). We can’t assume that we’ll be able to develop all of
the answers needed to address the Plan’s goal, but we can make a valid effort
along the way. There is a need for flexibility and fluidity, thus requiring pulling
together a hybrid model specifically for creating the County’s Plan.
In reading An Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance, the
authors pull together an integrative framework that is intended to work across a
wide variety of systems (Emerson, 2011). “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 nongovernmental
stakeholders to public-private partnerships” (Emerson, 2011). This framework
was helpful when applying it to the collaborative governance model needed for
creating the County’s Transportation Safety Action Plan.
The authors created what they refer to as a Collaborative Governance
Regime (CGR) (Emerson, 2011). This is where “cross-boundary collaboration
represents the predominate mode for conduct, decision-making, and activity”
(Emerson, 2011).
Emerson’s CGR framework includes three components of collaborative
dynamics:
1. principled engagement
2. shared motivation
3. capacity for joint action
Principled engagement refers to the face-to-face interactions, meetings, and
other venues where partners can discuss the content and goals. This is where
the various partners share their contextual views, values, and understanding of
the overall goal (Emerson, 2011). While it isn’t essential to collaborative
governance if consensus building is aligned from the start, in some situations this
engagement may find itself extensive in handling conflict over more controversial
situations.
Shared motivation refers to four elements: mutual trust, understanding,
internal legitimacy, and commitment (Emerson, 2011). Partners must work
together, be dependable, willing to exchange knowledge, share similar values,
understand constraints, have credibility in the field of discussion and need to be
dedicated to the project while overcoming possible conflicts that may occur.
Capacity for joint action is the ability to generate a desired outcome
collaboratively as a group instead of individually (Emerson 2011). Its elements
include identifying procedural and institutional arrangements in order to
determine ground rules for the group and sustainability long-term, which is
dependent on the project. The author also states that leadership is an element of
capacity for joint action (Emerson, 2011). A leader plays a critical role in
facilitating, conflict resolution, translating and championing the plan to ensure it
comes to fruition (Emerson, 2011). Knowledge and resources are also key
elements to capacity for joint action (Emerson, 2011).
Over time, the three primary components then produce collaborative action by
way of a regime (Emerson, 2011). The Collaborative Governance Regime (CGR)
is a high-level framework that enables the ability to develop the shared vision into
a desired outcome. This is a good concept, but in the case of the creation of the
County’s Plan, it lacks the ability to dive deeper into each component of the CGR
to determine the vast array of variables that an agency may encounter depending
on their situation. The CGR can set the stage for an agency to perform crossboundary collaboration. But the framework for something like the Transportation
Safety Action Plan will need additional components to address the dynamics of
the Plan in order for it to be implemented by various agencies. There is also a
level of autonomy needed that can enhance accountability.
There simply is no one easy solution to reducing transportation-related
serious injuries and fatalities, but Emerson’s tools through the integrative
framework process can help a group reach the shared vision when approaching
the Plan’s overarching goal.
A good facilitator will also come up with a plan for the Plan. This may seem
redundant, but the group needs a foundational facilitation plan in order to ensure
progress and success in reaching the goals of creating the action items for the
Plan. Buchel and Moss (2007) suggest that the facilitation plan include planning,
guiding, post follow-up and implementation. Planning will involve creating a frame
for the situation and conflict engagement, which will challenge existing models
with newly developed shared models (Buchel, 2007).
When guiding a group of stakeholders, the authors suggest that the leader or
facilitator take on the role of handling conflict in order for the group to come up
with agreeable solutions (Buchel 2007). Choreographing private and public
partners that have their own individual interests will not be simple by any means
when it comes to creating a Transportation Safety Action Plan. But in order to
make any headway with developing action items, a good leader or facilitator
needs to have a clear understanding of how to manage keeping the agenda
moving forward.
Follow-up and implementation review is the final step the authors recommend
for facilitating an event (Buchel, 2007). This is a safeguard that the group is on
the right path to making change through the suggested action items that they
agreed upon. Dropping the ball on implementation is not uncommon when the
action items lack any accountability. This brings us back around to the important
need to come up with realistic action items that encourage positive change.
In the journal article Utilizing Collaboration Theory to Evaluate Strategic
Alliances (2004), the author Rebecca Gajda emphasizes the realization that
multiple entities working together to problem solve will create a greater outcome
then if an agency took on the problem on their own. But there is still a lack of
clarity on how to successfully collaborate regardless of the wicked challenge.
“Although collaboration has the capacity to empower and connect fragmented
systems for the purposes of addressing multifaceted social concerns, its
definition is somewhat elusive, inconsistent, and theoretical” (Gajda, 2004).
When developing strategic alliances, Gajda (2004) observes multiple key
principles for which collaboration is derived.
Principle 1: Collaboration is an Imperative - It is not unusual for various
agencies to find themselves dependent on each other in handling a
complex issue (p. 67).
Principle 2: Collaboration is Known by Many Names – It’s meaning can
vary from working together, joint venture to cooperating with one another
(p. 68).
Principle 3: Collaboration is a Journey Not a Destination – “’Collaboration’
is identified as the most highly developed level of integration point on the
continuum” (p. 69). This continuum includes cooperation, coordination,
and collaboration.
Principle 4: With Collaboration, the Personal is as Important as the
Procedural - Existing relationships and newly created relationships will be
necessary when building an alliance (p. 69). It is the quality of those
relationships that will have great impacts when collaborating.
Principle 5: Collaboration Develops in Stages – “Form, storm, norm
perform, and adjourn” (Tuckman, 1977). These stages entail forming the
alliance (private and public partners), role clarity as it relates to the
initiative, determine norms (drawing focus away from implementation) and
then transformation where the group assesses the findings and comes up
with action items.
In order to evaluate the collaborative process, Gajda (2004) has come up
with a Strategic Alliance Formative Assessment Rubric (SAFAR). The SAFAR is
performed in four steps when doing the assessment.
Step 1—Convene Alliance Leadership for Focus Group Interview
Participants in this stage have reported that the interview has helped them
to define collaboration, recognize that their part in the initiative is much
more than “just showing up for meetings,” and understand the
expectations of the other partners (p. 72).
Step 2—Assess Baseline and Projected Levels of Integration
Participants in this step are asked to come to consensus on current and
projected levels of integration. The evaluator asks alliance representatives
to assess their current level of integration and to speculate on their
desired level of integration. They are prompted to brainstorm both intra and inter organizationally (p. 73).
Step 3—Collaboration Baseline Data Report
The Collaboration Baseline Data Report should identify the current level
of integration between each organizational unit that is part of the initiative
and should offer a baseline composite mean for the level of integration
across the entire collaborative (average of all intra- and inter-project
linkages) (p. 74).
Step 4—Assess Growth in Collaboration
In the follow-up collaboration workshop, post-baseline data for the
initiative can be identified and recorded, which allows project managers
and agency leaders to ascertain and celebrate the growth in their
collaborative efforts over time (p. 75).
The collaboration theory that Gajda (2004) has described includes
invaluable information about the importance of collaboration when agencies are
faced with complex issues. These are characteristics of collaboration that will
assist in the success of creating a strategic alliance while also outlining a way to
evaluate the collaboration with the SAFAR assessment tool (Gajda, 2004). There
is still a level of ambiguity in proper collaboration for the unique or specific
situation, but this provides a great outline to help achieve the goal of consensus
building through collaborative governance.
My research also included reviewing facilitation methods that can be
incorporated into a hybrid collaborative governance model. Facilitation is an
important part of collaborative governance that can help pave the way to a
shared vision. The article Using Facilitation to Drive Change – The Change
Leader’s Guide, the authors want readers to recognize the influence a facilitator
has on driving change (Buchel, 2007). Change for many can be difficult to
overcome and cope with. Facilitators can assist in consensus building and
motivating a group to make change, but it is up to the authority as to whether the
changes can be implemented. This will be a challenge when creating action
items in the County’s Transportation Safety Action Plan. There may be ideal
opportunities that are posed but it is the realistic ideas that are more likely to
come to fruition with the support of the entire group. A Plan with only ideal action
items will just become another Plan on a shelf collecting dust because it is too
complex or costly to implement.
By researching many types of collaborative governance frameworks and
facilitation methods, I was able to pull together bits and pieces of other
successful processes that I feel create a good mold for the foundation we need to
build that can be used as a tool for gathering the right stakeholders together to
create the County’s first Transportation Safety Action Plan. The information other
researchers have gathered provide great insight to essential needs of successful
collaborative governance, such as characteristics of a project focus group or
finding a balance between structural complexities and consensus building.
However, this research will better assist us in addressing how to best formulate
action items that will lead the County on a specific path that enhances
transportation safety. It will initiate a Plan that meets the needs of the
stakeholders that will be a part of the implementation while also understanding
the impacts that action items will have on the public at large. These action items
will be designed with a purpose to save lives and prioritizing ways of doing so. It
isn’t a Plan or direction to be taken lightly, therefore considerable thought is
needed to create a model for the County that is unique for this particular wicked
challenge.
Goals and Objectives
Why do we need a Transportation Safety Action Plan in the first place and
what drives the need for collaborative governance in order to create the Plan? A
uniquely designed collaborative governance model for creating the Plan will allow
a group of stakeholders to join together with a vision reaching a shared
consensus on action items. Consensus building doesn’t happen overnight. It is
very rare that you can pull together a large group of people that are immediately
on the same page as soon as you begin a project.
The Plan already has a high-level vision that includes an overarching goal
- to reduce transportation-related serious injury and fatal crashes. As an agency,
we incorporate the Federal Highway Administration’s 5 e’s approach into
transportation safety – education, engineering, enforcement, encouragement and
evaluation (FHWA, 2014). The 5 e’s will play a large role in the plan and are
critical elements in actually bringing together most of the necessary stakeholders
other then just transportation staff.
Unlike most other agencies, we are very fortunate to already have a
Traffic Safety Committee that includes many key stakeholders that we need to
create the Plan. They represent the fire department, local law enforcement,
school districts, ODOT, the health department, citizen participation organizations
(CPO’s), advocacy and non-profit groups such as Oregon Impacts, the Bicycle
Transportation Alliance, and the list goes on. While we already have this group of
stakeholders meeting regularly, that doesn’t mean we can hit the ground running
creating our Plan.
A shared vision through proper collaboration with the right stakeholders is
a critical key to creating the individual action items for the Plan based on the data
we will be gathering on crash trends in Washington County. Each individual
stakeholder will carry a torch for the very thing they are experts in – which bring
about reigns of autonomy, whether its emergency services, law enforcement,
bike and pedestrian advocacy, drug and alcohol prevention, traffic engineering,
among many others. The wicked challenge will be finding a common ground in
making sure each stakeholder’s views and ideas address the plan’s goal in
reducing transportation-related serious injury and fatal statistics based on
common crash trends while also not dismissing other types of crashes that may
not rank as high trend-wise, but may be on the rise.
Research Methods
Sampling
The completed and adopted Transportation Safety Action Plans that
currently exist include the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) and
Clackamas County (ODOT 2011, Clackamas County, 2012). Participants
interviewed for both Plans included Joe Marek, Clackamas County Traffic
Engineering Supervisor and Director of their Safe Communities program and
Walt McAllister, ODOT’s Safe Communities Program Manager. Additional
interviews were performed with traffic-engineering consultant’s Kittelson and
Associates, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., DKS Associates, and HDR, Inc. Each
consultant had their own level of expertise in creating a safety action plan, some
ranging from minimal to no experience to others having created several safety
action plans nationwide.
In addition to in-person interviews and discussions, I also researched
Emerson’s (2011) Integrative Framework for Collaborative Governance, Gajda’s
(2004) Collaboration Theory and Strategic Alliance Formative Assessment
model, and Buchel’s (2007) facilitation model.
Data collection
The data collection process included informal discussions with agency
staff from Clackamas County and ODOT along with the multiple trafficengineering consultants. Discussions with these participants entailed their
suggested approach to collaborative governance when creating a Transportation
Safety Action Plan, challenges faced and lessons learned from previously
created plans. Several of the consultants were relatively new to the process
since only a few Transportation Safety Action Plans exist but they had a general
idea of what was needed to put together this type of Plan and the need for
collaborative governance. It has only been recently that these plans have
become a priority in many counties and cities in order to address the existing
transportation-related serious injury and fatality crash trends.
Measurement
In order to gauge the effectiveness of previous collaborative governance
methods, models or processes performed by agencies or consultants that have
created Transportation Safety Action Plans or something similar in nature, I did
agency comparisons on the types of stakeholders included in the Plan and
evaluated their process when putting together and facilitation advisory
committees and public involvement events that occurred as part of the creation of
the Plans. There was valuable insight provided as to where they had
weaknesses, such as lack of leadership at the agency and organized facilitation.
And strengths, where the Plan’s teams made sure to incorporate diversity into
their plans and include various stakeholder input that has proven to be helpful
during the implementation process.
Modeling
Modeling work involved laying out the various elements recommended by
the multiple collaborative governance models that exist. It included specific
components that appear to be necessary for the development of Washington
County’s Transportation Safety Action Plan. Determining the components was
based on collaborative governance models that had a focus on policy
implementation that affected the public at large and best practices and lessons
learned from other public agencies and consultant-led efforts in creating these
plans. It developed into a hybrid model of collaborative governance components
by also inlaying best practices for facilitation to create the foundation for the
Plan’s creation.
Discussion
There is a clear realization that no one agency can take on creating a
culture that in turn creates a more vibrant community all by itself.
We live in a time when no organization can succeed on its own . . . As we
look around us in a new century, we realize than businesses and nonprofits in today’s interconnected world will neither thrive nor survive with
visions confined within the walls of their own organizations. They need to
look beyond the walls and find partners who can help achieve greater
results and build the vital communities to meet challenges ahead
(Hesselbein, 2000).
It is necessary to collaborate with other stakeholders, including the public,
in order to achieve great results in meeting our goal for the transportation safety
action plan. We need stakeholders at the table that can bring forth knowledge,
have the right attitude. and motivation to share implementable and feasible ideas
that will ensure the Plan’s success and long-term sustainability.
Collaborative governance is not a simple term to grasp. The definition and
purpose can vary from one project or challenge to the next. In general,
collaborative governance is an effective means of joining together various public
and private partnerships in order to formulate a plan or policy intended for the
greater good of society. It is a web-like structure that brings together multiple
perspectives, creative ideas and viable actions for implementation.
While the County’s Transportation Safety Action Plan is transportation
centric, groups that handle services like drug and alcohol prevention or even
suicide assistance are key stakeholders to the plan’s success. They may find
themselves leveraging the existence of their program based on the action items
in the Plan.
For instance, let’s say a transportation agency finds that they have a
common trend of alcohol related serious injury or fatal crashes among minors
between the ages of 17-20. They create action items in the Plan that suggest
enhanced outreach by the drug and alcohol prevention program within the local
high schools in that same jurisdictional area. If the drug and alcohol prevention
program at the County was facing reductions in staff or elimination of the
program due to lack of funding or because it isn’t a priority to elected officials,
their demise can impact the action items in the Plan - the statistics of minors in
alcohol related crashes will remain unchanged and/or have the potential to
increase. This is why it is important to take this into consideration when creating
the action items and the accountability of other services beyond the
transportation department.
Collaborative Governance Model
Figure 1 outlines the proposed collaborative governance model that
incorporates the essential components necessary when bringing together public
and private stakeholders that will be able to successfully create action items for
the County’s first Transportation Safety Action Plan.
LEADERSHIP
• ROLE MODEL
• CREATE AN INSTITUTION
• CONFLICT RESOLUTION
• FACILITATION
TRUST
• VALUES
• ETHICAL FRAMEWORK
• RELATIONSHIPS
• CREDIBILITY
CONSENSUS
CULTURE
AUTONOMY
• COMPETENCY
• DIVERSITY
• ENVIRONMENTAL INFLUENCE
• SOCIAL NORMING
• POWER FOR CHANGE
• EXPERTISE
• ROLE CLARITY
• ACCOUNTABILITY
Figure 1 – Collaborative Governance Model
Leadership
Leadership is a major key to creating this Plan. You need to have
someone that is passionate about the meaning behind the Plan and will move
forward with ensuring its implementation long term. There will be hiccups (or as
we say in transportation - road blocks) that we’ll encounter, but a true leader will
want to take on wicked challenges to come to a positive result for the greater
good. “Leadership can be an external driver…an essential ingredient of
collaborative governance itself, and a significant outgrowth of collaboration”
(Emerson, 2011).
It is important to create an institution where everyone wants to reach the
same goals. Emerson’s (2011) Integrative Framework includes having the
dynamics of shared motivation and capacity for joint action. The stakeholders
need to be cheerleading champions for the same team, which will create the
needed institution.
There will be times when stakeholders do not agree upon everything
brought to the table. The leader needs to address the conflicts and ensure there
is an agreed upon (not forced upon) resolution in order to keep moving forward.
Lastly, the leader needs to either be a good facilitator or have a good
facilitation plan. When you bring various stakeholders to the table that need to
agree upon shared ideas, you must keep the group focused on the task at hand.
Proper facilitation is the key to success in creating any major plan. “Facilitation
helps individuals and groups to revisit the values and beliefs that have guided
their past decision-making and actions, and so enables them to develop new
ideas about what is important and how issues are interrelated” (Buchel, 2007).
There will be a key leader championing the group but each of the
stakeholders also needs to carry strong leadership skills. These skills will be
necessary in helping decide upon action items that can be implemented and the
actual follow through of the items having an impact on reducing transportationrelated serious injury and fatality crash statistics.
Trust
Trust is also necessary as you are pulling together your stakeholders. This
is an element that is unique to this collaborative governance model. Most other
models or methods tend to focus on collectivism, mutual understanding, and
cooperation. However, if you don’t have trust, you can’t build relationships that
are willing to collaborate and come to an agreement on action items. Lack of
government trust from the public or even other agencies is not uncommon,
oftentimes due to lack of transparency or wasteful spending on projects that
aren’t necessary. In order to convince stakeholders to join us at the table to
create this Plan, they need to trust the lead agency. They need to feel confident
that there is a true desire to make this Plan with the realistic purpose of saving
lives and finding ways to go about putting an end to preventable crashes.
Those that want to partake in creating the Plan, need to have the same
shared value of actually wanting to reduce serious injury and fatal crash statistics
in their community. If that isn’t of interest and the person sees these crashes as a
way of life, that stakeholder is likely not a prime candidate in moving forward with
action items for the Plan. Rather, that stakeholder needs to be the audience in
the educational public involvement sessions where it can be explained that there
is a need to have this Plan to save lives.
With shared values comes compatible ethical frameworks. Each individual
will have his or her own unique ethical framework. There is a need for everyone
to have an ethical conscious, as this is a government document funded by
taxpayer dollars that affects the public at large.
Existing relationships and partnerships are very beneficial because these
stakeholders are typically familiar with your agency and how you operate. The
recruitment of other stakeholders that are credible and will bring knowledge and
the same passion to the table is essential.
Culture
Culture is very important to creating any plan that affects society.
Washington County has a very diverse community and the stakeholders that take
part in producing the Plan need to be representative of the community the Plan
will serve. We need a variety of “lenses” at the table. We find ourselves stalled in
old traditional ways of handling things because there is an element of comfort in
doing so. However, the world around us is continually changing at rapid rates.
The way things were done 30-40 years ago is not reflective of how things are
done today. We need new-aged thinking based on this constantly changing
environment.
There is a need to combine cultures as a way to achieve coadunation, or
unity (Gajda, 2004). This doesn’t mean you blend all of the various cultures that
exist, rather you take elements of each existing culture and create a new culture
of wanting to keep our roadways safe and preventing crashes. It can be a culture
in and of its own.
Social norming is also a major facet of creating the Transportation Safety
Action Plan. We are often jaded by misconceptions that the majority of the
population behaves in a certain way. When in fact they don’t and if people
focused on the reality of actual behavior, it can greatly assist in creating this
positive culture that results in a greater good for society – by looking through a
new lens.
Autonomy
And lastly is the element of autonomy. This is important to maintain. Each
stakeholder has their role in society and they are the experts in their field. When
we come up with action items, they need to be feasible and able to be
implemented by the stakeholders at the table based on their role in the action
items and their areas of expertise. This allows them to still carry some power,
which can reassure their desire to be a part of the positive change.
Creating the action items for the Plan will also require the need to ensure
the stakeholders clearly understand their role in the making of the plan and the
action items themselves. This will ensure they are held accountable in assisting
with implementing the action items in the Plan, to achieve success of the Plan’s
goal.
Using the Model
Pulling together a Transportation Safety Action Plan that will actually have
good meaning and measurable goals that can be implemented will be a complex
challenge for the County. That is why the critical element to the making of this
plan is to ensure we have stakeholders at the table helping develop the plan that
fit into the collaborative governance model in Figure 1.
We need a leader from each agency that has a strong commitment to the
Plan in not only coming up with action items but also desiring to make sure the
items are implemented and evaluated. Representatives from each agency need
to be involved in the discussions of the Plan by way of an advisory committee. As
a leader, for their agency, they need to report back to their peers and
management at their respective agencies to decide upon action items that they
are willing to be held accountable for if they have a part in implementation.
For instance, let’s assume we have a crash trend relating to underage
impairment while driving. The Plan’s advisory committee decides that one of the
best programs to reach out to teens with is the Stop Kids Impaired Driving (SKID)
program, which is run by several agencies in Washington County (WCSO 2015).
SKID is a "live-action melodrama" which simulates a fatal, alcohol-related
traffic crash for high school audiences. SKID is a multi-agency, community
effort that relies on strong partnerships with Tualatin Valley Fire and
Rescue, Hillsboro Towing, Metro-West Ambulance, and Life Flight, as well
as several city police departments, fire service agencies, and school
districts throughout Washington County (WCSO 2015).
The action item may include enhancing this program and reaching out to
all local high schools twice a year. The leader of the advisory committee and the
representatives from several of these agencies, including the Sheriff’s Office,
Metro West, school districts and Tualatin Valley Fire and Rescue need to follow
through with getting support from management at their agencies by presenting
the action item idea in a fashion that will convince management of its need based
on crash trends and to make sure there is follow through with whatever
commitment they can make. The representative of the agencies will need
leadership skills that display confidence, a desire to create a culture of safety,
can help resolve any concerns about the action item, and that can ensure the
action item can be implemented through proper facilitation within their agency.
The leaders from each agency that are a part of the Plan’s advisory
committee also need to be able to trust one another. The Plan has its
overarching goal of reducing transportation-related serious injury and fatality
crashes on our roadways. Staff on the Plan’s advisory committee will need to
come to a consensus on shared values in order to all want to meet this goal.
These values are often derived from ethical frameworks of each individual. Not
everyone will have a similar framework but discussion about their individual
framework will help strengthen the relationships between each agency and
establish a sense of trust. If there is a lack of trust, it will create a weakness for
the team. In similar fashion, the lead agency and advisory committee members
need to be credible sources for the agencies that they represent. The advisory
committee needs to have members from the different agencies that have a stake
in the Plan and a similar desire to achieve the Plan’s goal.
In the case of the underage impairment crash trend example, the agency
representatives that are a part of the advisory committee need to agree upon the
suggested action item to enhance the SKID program. The committee members
will want to be able to trust the responsible agencies that are going to carry out
the SKID program in following through with its enhancement and making an effort
to find funding and staff to do so. If the representatives from the responsible
agencies share the same values of reaching the Plan’s goals and as long as they
have a general framework that strives to save lives in a cost effective and
responsible manner, this will help build the trust needed among committee
members. Trust goes both ways. The agencies responsible for the action items
also need to be able to trust that they will receive support from other committee
members in helping make sure this action item can be implemented and
sustained as a team effort.
This same concept has a role in the autonomy portion of the model as
well. Each agency is responsible for implementing the actions where their field of
expertise is needed. The Plan’s action items may have specific suggestions that
will require individual agencies to respond to in order to help meet the Plan’s
goals. The action items created by the committee and agreed upon by the
agency’s representative responsible for the item needs to ensure there is a
clearly outlined role for the agency, which will also hold them accountable in
making sure the action item is carried out.
Circling back around to our example again, the SKID program is put on by
multiple emergency services agencies and the school districts. These
stakeholders have the tools to put on this melodrama simulation for students at
local high schools. The committee will rely on representatives from these
agencies to carry out this suggested action item in an effort to make an impact on
teen drivers to prevent them from driving impaired.
And lastly, when it comes to using the suggested collaborative
governance model, the advisory committee members need to have a strong
understanding of culture. Not only culture from a demographic standpoint, but
also the ability to create a culture of safety on our roadways. We live in a diverse
society when it comes to ethnicity, styles of communication, and an array values
among various generations. We need to pull together bits and pieces of each of
these cultures to ensure we are reaching out to the public at large in order to
create a culture of safety. Stakeholders on the committee need to have a good
understanding of the differing cultures and must be open to and creative in
coming up with ways to reach out to everyone with their message.
When it comes to the SKID program, the advisory needs to evaluate
whether the program will actually impact the audience they will be performing to
in order to make sure it is a feasible action item based on the culture that exists.
They typically put on this simulation at local high schools with teenagers and
faculty as their audience. An evaluation needs to be done about how to best go
about putting on the simulation in a way that it has an impact on this audience.
They need to make sure they are communicating in a way that will interest the
millennial generation. Those putting on the simulation need to be representative
of the audience they are performing for as well. All of this is going to require
cultural competency, understanding external influences that the teenagers may
experience, and the ability to create a safety culture through social norming.
They need to be strong leaders that influence others and encourage followers
(Kouzes and Posner, 2012).
By utilizing this collaborative governance model designed specifically to
our needs, it will allow us to be able to come to a consensus so we can move
forward with a Plan that can actually meet it’s goal of reducing transportationrelated serious injury and fatal statistics on our roadways. All of these elements
are critical in making the Plan a success.
Findings
The collaborative governance model that I plan to use when putting
together the County’s Transportation Safety Action Plan will encompass
components of leadership, trust, culture, and autonomy. This will be incorporated
among the group of stakeholders that help put together the plan – essentially the
advisory committee or focus group. The balance of these components to achieve
a consensus will allow us to build relationships throughout the creation of the
Plan and will ensure resources are not being wasteful but rather can produce a
desired outcome. The need for all of these components is based on the goal of
the Plan (reducing serious injury and fatal crashes) and how to achieve the
development of quality action items that meet the Plan’s goal.
Areas for Future Research
Since there isn’t a specific collaborative governance model that exists and
can be generally used by every governing agency taking on the creation of a
Transportation Safety Action Plan or something similar, a person seeking a good
model for their agency needs to consider the existing models out there and
create a hybrid model specific to their needs. There is a wealth of valuable
information out there that will be helpful to anyone needing to find essential
elements to collaborative governance.
Additional future research needs to include incorporating evaluation
characteristics into the model. A person can create a model, but they also need
to measure its success depending on the project they are using the model for.
Conclusion
The collaborative governance structure that will be suggested for use
when putting together the County’s first Transportation Safety Action Plan will be
unique to other structures but will hold the same value of how best to go about
consensus building through a shared vision by overcoming pluralistic ignorance.
The balance will require determining the level of collaboration needed to address
the overarching goal of the Plan.
There is a need to create a culture that respects life without risking the life
of oneself or others. We live in a fast-paced individualistic world that often forgets
or lacks appreciation for how bettering the lives of others will actually benefit the
individual person just as much. My goal for establishing the group of
stakeholders will be to get them to understand this need and the value of forward
and collective thinking.
Our friends we met in Vietnam really taught me the reality of this type of
culture. Their style of transportation, while absolutely chaotic, was so
harmonious. Everyone yields to the other and respects the other’s need for
survival just as much as their own. Minus their style of chaotic transportation, this
is the type of harmonious culture I hope to create from our Transportation Safety
Action Plan generated by a group of public and private stakeholders that can
create the very foundation for this culture.
Evaluation is often overlooked yet essential when testing out the use of
any new model. It will be important to follow through with measuring the
effectiveness of the collaborative governance model that we plan to move
forward with.
Leadership Reflections
Prior to starting Portland State’s Executive Master of Public Administration
(EMPA) program, Clackamas County has just wrapped up their first
Transportation Safety Action Plan. I was envious of Joe Marek (Clackamas
County’s Lead Traffic Engineer), who led the effort and managed its making.
Joe’s drive for creating a positive safety-focused culture in his community really
resonated with me. But he was also in a high-level management position that had
the power and ability to influence others in creating this officially adopted Plan
that would be implemented by their staff and the various stakeholders involved in
the making of the Plan. However, I was equally amazed at his Plan and wanted
this same Plan for Washington County.
Fortunately, I already had a valuable resource to turn to (Joe) and an
established Traffic Safety Committee that include many critical stakeholders. I
also have a strong passion for educating the public on how to use our
transportation infrastructure safely. It is something I’ve carried a torch for so the
thought of putting together a Plan that includes ideas on furthering safety greatly
interested me.
My initial roadblock was that I was “only” a Program Educator at the time.
This position is fairly low in the government hierarchy. I lacked confidence in
approaching management about us taking on creating this Plan for the County.
This Plan was not just a plan. It would be an official document adopted by the
County Board of Commissioners that would be implemented by staff and
stakeholders. This was serious and could greatly impact the lives of the
community. To convince management that we needed this plan, I knew I had to
be strategic when asking permission to move forward in making it but lacked the
confidence and tools to get me to that point.
Soon after Clackamas County’s adoption of their plan, I learned about
Portland State’s EMPA program and how much it would help boost confidence in
people like me that feel they do not hold leadership roles in the agencies that
they provide a service for. Dr. Ingle was the first to instill in me that I was
absolutely wrong in my thinking. I may not be in a management role, but I had
leadership skills that would allow me to lead from where I sat, no matter where
that chair was or how small my cube was (our cube size is based on our level in
the department’s hierarchy). I learned that I had the leadership traits needed to
influence management. I just didn’t know how to capitalize on those skills. With
my lower level position at the County, it would take a considerable amount of
work in comparison to someone already in a management position, but I was
encouraged that if I felt passionate enough about something, I should not give up
in pursuing my ambitions.
Over the past 21 months, I’ve learned how to strategically become a
leader at my agency through this program, which led me to taking on the
County’s first Transportation Safety Action Plan. The strong support from Joe
Marek and staff at ODOT motivated me to keep moving forward and request that
we pursue creating our very first Plan. It took some convincing, but thanks to the
EMPA program, I had learned how to strategically prepare for and properly
approach my management team with a large request like this. They gave me the
thumbs up to run with it.
From an ethical standpoint, I feel it is our agency’s responsibility to have
an action plan like this in place that not only includes participation from all of the
necessary stakeholders but to also show the community we serve how important
transportation safety is to us and why it needs to be important to them too. The
transportation department that I work for needs the help of others to achieve
safety on our roadways while we help spearhead the movement.
A shared vision through collaborative governance can have great
influence in the positive culture we have the potential to create, but it needs a
strong ethical leader that is willing to influence others by modeling they way
(Kouzes & Posner, 2012). This program has taught me the significance of
leadership in the public sector and has given me the right tools to become a
valuable leader for my agency.
References
Buchel, B., Moss, I. (2007). Using facilitation to drive change – The change
leader’s guide. Perspective for Managers, 150, 1-4.
Clackamas County. (2013) Clackamas County Transportation Safety Action Plan.
Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., Balogh, S. (2011). An Integrative Framework for
Collaborative Governance. Journal of Public Administration Research and
Theory, 22, 1-29.
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). (2014). Safe Routes to School:
Program Guidance. Retrieved from:
www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/safe_routes_to_school/guidance/
Gajda, R. (2004). Utilizing Collaboration Theory to Evaluate Strategic Alliances.
American Journal of Evaluation, 25, 65-77.
Hesselbein, F., & Whitehead, J. (2000). The collaboration challenge: How nonprofits and businesses succeed through strategic alliances. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Kouzes, J. & Posner, B. (2012). The Leadership Challenge, Fifth Edition. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). (2011). Transportation Safety
Action Plan: An Element of the Oregon Transportation Plan.
Thomson, A, & Perry, J. (2006). Collaboration Process: Inside the Black Box.
Public Administration Review, 66, 20-32.
Tuckman, B., & Jensen, M. (1977). Stages of small group development revisited.
Group and Organizational Studies, 2, 419–427.
Washington County Sheriff’s Office (WCSO). (2015). Stop Kids Impaired Driving
(SKID) Program. Retrieved from:
www.co.washington.or.us/Sheriff/OtherServices/CrimePrevention/skidprogram.cfm