UNCG Collaborative Capacity Work Group
WORKING DRAFT
BUILDING COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY
A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
Collaborative Capacity Guidance Document Draft Mar 8.docs
March 31, 2012
CCWG Wikispace: http://uncgcollaborativecapacity.wikispaces.com/
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Why Guidance on Building Collaborative Capacity Is Needed
B. Guidance Document Structure and Format
C. Guidance Document Format
Definitions (box)
II. The Conceptual Framework for Collaborative Capacity
References and Literature Review
III. Collaborative Capacity Initiatives and Lessons Learned
IV. Collaborative Capacity Literature Review
Appendices
 Appendix- KSAs for Collaborative Capacity
1
I.
INTRODUCTION
“Collaboration is becoming the 21st century’s governance tool of choice and necessity.”
-UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies
A. Why Guidance on Building Collaborative Capacity Is Needed
Governance in the United States is in transition and is increasingly accomplished through
a complex set of networks, partnerships, and collaborations in the shadow of formal
organizational hierarchies which continue to play central roles in government
organizations.
The complex societal issues facing government require new types of collaborative
relationships to be forged. Increased fiscal constraints is pushing managers to develop
new ways of doing business with citizens, the private sector, and other government
organizations
The past decade has seen considerable growth in the number of collaborations among
government agencies at the federal and state levels and with private sector and
nongovernmental partners to achieve mission results. In government and industry,
collaboration is on the rise because it has been found to reduce litigation, decrease costs,
and increase innovation (Mankin, Cohen & Fitzgerald, 2004).
Today we have a better picture of the individual competencies needed for high
performance and successful collaboration.1 What are the characteristics of organizations
whose members effectively and successfully collaborate? How do they make collaboration
a leadership competency and support its use by managers and staff in pursuing mission?
Building collaborative capacity has been mostly a by-product and not a focus of this
activity.2 We are only beginning to develop and validate ways to assess individual and
institutional collaborative capacity and provide guidance to agencies in terms of aligning
their strategies, incentives, rewards, policies and procedures to support this.
The audiences for this guidance include those leaders making high level funding and
policy decisions for agencies and organizations, senior management working on
embedding collaborative capacity within the organization and agency and staff on the
See, UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies, 2011, University Network for
Collaborative Governance,
http://www.policyconsensus.org/uncg/collaborativecompetencies.html
1
2
“The concept of a capacity for collaboration is a metaphor that has occurred to many
theorists and researchers. There is a growing body of literature, and there appears to be
some agreement that topics such as social capital, network ties, trust, and incentives are
critical. The major need identified by theorists and inductive researchers (e.g., Bardach,
1998) is to operationalize the overarching concept and contributing variables.”
2
front line engaged in representing the agencies in collaboration.
B. Guidance Document Structure & Format
A guide focusing on collaborative capacity will offer managers and leaders and framework
and guidance on:




How to address and facilitate political leadership/authority and empowerment
for staff to use collaboration where appropriate,
Understanding the investments of time and resources needed to support
collaboration
The development of institutional procedures that reward use of collaborative
strategies and
Review and changes regarding organizational culture and collaboration.
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
3
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).”
Bill Logue Guidance Format Thoughts (from google doc comments):
If the group has discussed this before my joining please excuse but wanted to pose a basic
issue that impacts format. It seems that there are several possible audiences and purposes
for a guidance document that have implications for format and how it is accessed and
used. These include:
1. People involved at high level policy and funding decisions about making the initial
determination to move to build collaborative capacity in an organization, e.g., agency and
executive leadership, legislators. (The use and implementation then needs to be tracked to
make the case for continuing support through leadership transitions and political shifts
because programs and efforts will need to justify themselves on an ongoing basis – any
lessons from university centers on this could be helpful.)
2. Senior staff making broader decisions on embedding collaborative capacity practices
pursuant to a policy decision.
3. Staff who are working on design and implementation of collaborative capacity and
competency. These are also the folks who will be providing information to the above.
For the first group the broad brush static (Print, PDF) approach would seem most useful.
For the second and third groups (on the ground or line staff for lack of a better term),
they are more likely to need information in the moment which is more dynamic in how it
is delivered, accessed and updated so that they can:
a) design/implement or
b) provide just in time input to senior leadership to build knowledge and awareness.
The issue of turnover requiring ongoing education and advocacy for collaborative
capacity may play into format – at the senior level about why it is important and at the
supporting levels on the what and how of collaborative capacity.
C. The History of this University Network for Collaborative Governance Initiative
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. In
the Fall of 2011 a work group was formed with members from the Network, from
4
agencies with collaborative capacity experience and other experts.
It was agreed that institutional collaborative capacity 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
assessments and initiatives[3]
DEFINITIONS
Collaborative Capacity is the ability of organizations to effectively enter into, develop,
and sustain intra and inter-organizational systems in pursuit of collective and shared
outcomes and goals. It focuses on the organization’s network for support of collaborative
efforts both within and beyond the organization. In order to effectively engage and
participate in collaborative governance initiatives, public agencies and private organizations
need to assess their organizational collaborative capacity as well as the capacity of their
staff.
Collaborative Competency focuses on the individual’s capacity for and mastery of
effective collaboration. The UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies focuses on
guiding public managers interested in improving their staff’s collaborative competence
through continuing education and training.
Collaborative Governance is 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. 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 in order to
leverage and build on the unique attributes and resources of each.
Governance is the process by which public ends and means are identified, agreed upon,
and pursued. It encompasses both formal and informal systems of relationships and
networks for decision-making and problem solving.
Government relates to the specific jurisdiction in which authority is exercised.
II.
THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE
CAPACITY
I am hoping to be on the call today, at least for an hour. I read through the compiled draft and attach my
few marginal notes at this time. In the process of reviewing it though I thought of one way of looking at the
system components you might consider:
1. Leadership commitment to collaboration
2. Institutional incentives for collaboration
3. Collaborative organizational culture
4. Collaborative competencies
5
Just a thought. It integrates the two frameworks of Marci's and ties in with the competencies guide. But
you may be way down the road on this, in which case, accept my apologies for this tardy suggestion.
Kirk
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
must function within a particular context (Diamond and McDonald 1996). In large, nonlinear 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 interdependent 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 crossproject 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 collaboration, explain its benefits, and encourage
ongoing learning about how to do it well (Foster-Fishman et al.). Those initiating
collaboration projects must, among other things, have interpersonal networks they can
tap into at all levels of their organizations, and all participants should have the authority
6
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:



Minimization of collaborative activities; risk aversion and lack of trust among
participating agencies (How to Engage Low-Literacy and Limited-EnglishProficiency Populations in Transportation Decision making, 2006);
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
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
7
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
8
http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_challenge_of_organizational_learni
ng
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
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 Collaborative
Capacity: An Innovative Strategy for Homeland Security Preparedness." In Innovation
Through Collaboration - Advances in Interdisciplinary Studies of Work Teams. Vol. 12, 255274. 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 Field
Perspective. Published by USACE Conflict Resolution & Public Participation Center,
May, 2011 (2011-CPC-R-04).
9
III. COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY INITIATIVES
First Cut –
Analyzing Seven Examples of Collaborative Capacity Initiatives
John Stephens – March 27, 2012
From the March 8th draft of UNCG Collaborative Capacity Work Group + A
seventh example, as listed below
List of Examples
1.
US Army Corps of Engineers - Collaborative Capacity Assessment Initiative
(Maria and Marci) ABBREV = USACE-CollabCapacAssess
2.
US Forest Service “Empowering Collaborative Stewardship” Project (Deb &
Marci) ABBREV = USFS-CollabStwdshps
3.
US Forest Service Sierra Cascades Dialog Group (Deb) ABBREV = USFSSCDialogGrp
4.
Massachusetts Department of Transportation Public Engagement Capacity
Building (Bill Logue) ABBREV = MassDOT-PubEngCapacBldg
5.
US Federal Highway Administration - TCAPP Transportation for Communities Advancing Projects through Partnerships (Shari Schaftlein) ABBREV =
USFHWA-TCAPP
6.
Alberta Collaborative Governance Initiative (Chris Carlson) ABBREV =
AlbertaCollabGov
7.
California Emergency Management Interoperability Initiative (Adam Sutkus)
ABBREV = CalifEmergMgtInteropInit
Member Comments
10
Marci Dupraw.
1.
Re: #1, collab capacity to do what, perhaps add leverage limited resources;
expand available resources; ecosystem restoration; and natural resource
management. Perhaps combine this section with #7?
2.
Re: Sections 3-4 on p. 2, I think these might be fruitful places to focus some
discussion time on Monday’s call to futz with categories, and which items go
where. (I’d put Adam’s new one under Section 3, but it has some elements of
#4, too… food for thought re: the USFS point about internal/external
strategies …) Also, going forward, I’m thinking you and I may end up working
together on writing, yes? Would enjoy thinking / reflecting / writing with you
on the underlying collab capacity building methods / strategies reflected in the
examples.
3.
On Section 6, p. 3, the 2 entries refer to the same project. Combine.
4.
P. 4, what we need to make case more robust, seems like another good topic
to discuss on Monday call. Seems to reflect some assumptions that might be
good to unbundle / see if shared (e.g., why need for more examples of changed
laws, changed funding designations, etc…. role of evaluation re: this paper, etc.)
5.
On p. 7., where you call for details / examples, did you see that there are 2
there already? “Climate’ and “inventory etc”? Can provide more detail, tho.
6.
Re: p. 8, the resources you have bulleted under “which resources are relevant,”
are all relevant to collab cap building, but not products of our Empowering…
project. The ones bulleted under “Outcomes” are from our project, and also
the overall update of this website to make all those other resources readily
accessible.
TWO MAIN POINTS OF COMPARISON AND CONTRAST
1. “Collaborative Capacity” to do What?
From the seven examples, I see the following desired goals, final outcomes, and related
operational values for why collaborative capacity is important.
A. Process Goals/Objectives
1. Public engagement (authentic and effective)
2. Collaborative problem solving
3. Consensus-building
4. Stakeholder negotiation
5. Dispute/Conflict resolution
6. Be inclusive and transparent
7. Interagency and Intergovernmental partnering; coordination
B. Results/Products
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Integrating environment/ecological concerns
Better decision-making
Be accountable
Strategic plan for multi-stakeholder group
Improved interoperability of emergency communication
11
6.
7.
8.
9.
New highway capacity
Water resource planning and management
Enact a bioregion “all lands” approach
Address complex issues on a large, landscape scale
2. Answering the So what? Question: Kinds of Outcomes/ Achievements
(1) Political Leadership, Authority, and Empowerment
A. USACE – Action by Senior Leaders, January 2011
 CPC directed to synch 7 recommendations with other USACE
initiatives.
 No new funds: 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 was not appropriate/relevant.
B. Informing USFS decisions via the Regional Leadership Team and other
staff of the Forest Service (USFS-CollabStwdshps)
C. Establishing/supporting key inter-agency and inter-sector organizations
which now have facilitative leadership capacity
(CalifEmergMgtInteropInit)
(2) Individual Knowledge, Skills and Abilities
A. Improve Training (inform current course content and develop new courses,
such as the basics of facilitation and collaborative leadership - USACECollabCapacAssess).
B. Document “lessons learned”
C. Identify best practices
D. Establish a Community of Practice, “to foster relationships, connect people
doing similar work, raise the profile of collaboration and public
participation, and share best practices and lessons learned.
E. Facilitation/meeting management and strategic planning skills
(CalifEmergMgtInteropInit)
F. Ensure USACE personnel can readily access facilitators and mediators to assist them with
collaborative processes
(3) Time and Resources
A) Specific “work tools”
 Big, multi-faceted: USFHWA-TCAPP
 Narrower, but highly adaptable - Electronic collaboration tools to
maximize the benefit of collaboration when it must be done remotely USFS-CollabStwdshps)
B) Reference/website/guidance materials
12

A brief primer, entitled, “Collaboration: Getting Started, ” - USFSCollabStwdshps
 A FACA “Easy Button, ” - USFS-CollabStwdshps
 After-Action Review Tools - USFS-CollabStwdshps
 General resource website – collection of #10 and more - Partnership
Resource Center - http://www.fs.usda.gov/prc - USFS-CollabStwdshps
 Identify best practices
C) Case studies
 An initial draft map of FS-related collaboratives - USFSCollabStwdshps
 Moving to develop a database USACE-CollabCapacAssess
D) Establish a Community of Practice, “to foster relationships, connect people
doing similar work, raise the profile of collaboration and public
participation, and share best practices and lessons learned.
E) Ensure USACE personnel can readily access facilitators and mediators to assist them with
collaborative processes
(4) Institutional Procedures
A. Clarify the relationship and intersection of conflict resolution and public
participation with two other communities of practice – Tribal Relations and
Public Affairs USACE-CollabCapacAssess).
B. Local government protocols and agreements for joint planning, cooperation,
dispute resolution and/or limit opportunities for conflict escalation
(AlbertaCollabGov)
C. Identified key questions to be addressed through a science synthesis to support
a Sierra Nevada bioregional assessment and forest plan revisions.
D. Specific, routinized ways for local-state agencies and other stakeholders to
complete required reports to California legislature (CalifEmergMgtInteropInit)
(5) Organizational Culture
A. USACE field perspectives to CPC to help CPC improve collaborative
capacity. (USACE-CollabCapacAssess)
(6) Networks and Relationships
A. Improved working relationships; new foundation of trust and mutual
accountability (CalifEmergMgtInteropInit)
OTHER COMPARISONS
3. Government level – the lead or initiating agency?
13
A. Federal – (USFS, USACE, USFHWA and co-sponsors: co-sponsored by the
Pacific Southwest Region of the Forest Service and University of California
B. Region – USFS-SCDialogGrp
C. Provincial agency – AlbertaCollabGov
D. State – MassDOT-PubEngCapacBldg, CalifEmergMgtInteropInit
4. Difference in doing “internal organization development” vs. Conducting multistakeholder project to positively affect individual organizations’’ capabilities
A. Internal organization development
USACE-CollabCapacAssess
MassDOT-PubEngCapacBldg
USFHWA-TCAPP
B. Conducting (one or more) multi-stakeholder project/s which have a
related/intended/secondary effect of improving the collaborative capacity of the
stakeholder organizations
USFS-SCDialogGrp
USFHWA-TCAPP
5. Service delivery changes or restructuring
a) AlbertaCollabGov – “helping them do their business better”
b) USFHWA-TCAPP – decision tool
c) Unclear - USACE-CollabCapacAssess, USFS-SCDialogGrp,
CalifEmergMgtInteropInit
d) Too early - MassDOT-PubEngCapacBldg
6. Agency-wide vs. subpart of work
a) Agency Wide
USACE-CollabCapacAssess
USFHWA-TCAPP
USFS-CollabStwdshps
MassDOT-PubEngCapacBldg
b) Subpart of department/agency
USFS-SCDialogGrp
7. Developing a “community of practice”
a) USACE-CollabCapacAssess – “establish a Collaboration and Public
Participation Community of Practice.. and link with two other communities of
practice – Tribal Relations and Public Affairs”
b) USFS-CollabStwdshps
In process – still learning, and to update:
Pilot projects
14
a) Longfellow Bridge Task Force - 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 MassDOT-PubEngCapacBldg
b) TCAPP Decision Tool “Holistic” - One set is testing the tool
holistically. Most of the pilots within this set are focused on how TCAPP
addresses collaboration with stakeholders and partners.
c) TCAPP Decision Tool and Integrated Ecological Framework - The second
set is focused specifically on how TCAPP supports the integration of
ecological planning and transportation decision making through the
Integrated Ecological Framework (IEF).
d) TCAPP Decision Tool: Additional pilot tests are planned
Making our “case data” more robust
We still need:
a) More subjects/government functions – some possibilities
 Information Technology – inter-agency (and inter-sector?) – Shannon
Tufts (UNC) and Dr. Theresa Pardo (Univ. of Albany) [John Stephens
is doing outreach]
 Health/Health Care/Medical Care
b) More “completed work” – RE: cited as “early stages” - MassDOTPubEngCapacBldg, and USFS-SCDialogGrp
c) More examples of changed procedures, rules or laws
d) Examples of changed funding designations – I did not see any breaking down
the silos of funding
e) Outside evaluations – right now we are at the descriptive stage, will be get to
an evaluative stage given our timeframe of work? One example may yield
evaluation in 2012: MassDOT/MOPC project team includes an external
evaluator.
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
15
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
16
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
17
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
Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Context:
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.
Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity initiative (aims/objectives):
To systematically foster the collaborative capacity of the US Forest Service, agency-wide.
Process Steps Summary:
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 lowkey, 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
18
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.
Outcomes/Achievements:
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.
Which resources are relevant, RE: Outcomes/Achievements:
 National Partnership Office http://www.fs.fed.us/aboutus/partnership/index.shtml
 Partnership Resource Center –
http://www.fs.usda.gov/prc
Highlights: What is a partnership?
Introduction to Collaboration
The Art of Collaboration - includes a quicklink to UNCG Guide to
Collaborative Competencies
Collaborative Examples

Collaborative Example: Upper Joseph Creek Landscape Scale Assessment



Collaborative Example: Northeast Washington Forestry Coalition
Collaborative Example: Tongass Futures Roundtable
Collaborative Example: New Mexico Biomass Evaluation Task Force

Collaborative Forest Landscape Restoration Program (CFLRP) -
19
http://www.fs.fed.us/restoration/CFLR/index.shtml
Wildfire prevention and management – collaboration – December 2006 - A
Collaborative Approach for Reducing Wildland Fire Risks to Communities
and the Environment - 10-Year Strategy Implementation Plan http://www.forestsandrangelands.gov/resources/plan/documents/10yearstrategyfinal_dec2006.pdf
 USDA Forest Service Southwestern Region - Collaborative Forest
Restoration Program (CFRP)
http://www.fs.usda.gov/wps/portal/fsinternet/!ut/p/c4/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSz
Py8xBz9CP0os3gjAwhwtDDw9_AI8zPwhQoY6BdkOyoCAPkATlA!/?ss=11
03&navtype=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&cid=null&navid=091000000000000&p
navid=null&position=BROWSEBYSUBJECT&ttype=main&pname=Region%
203-%20Home/cfrp/
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
Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Context:
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.
Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity initiative (aims/objectives):
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.
20
• Create shared responsibility and understanding.
• Build relationships and trust among all stakeholders through interest-based problem
solving techniques.
Process Steps Summary:
The Sierra Cascades Dialogue is based on best practices in the fields of public
participation[12] 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.
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.
Outcomes/Achievements:
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).
21
4. Massachusetts Department of Transportation Public Engagement Capacity
Building (Status 1/18/2012)
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
Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Context:
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.
Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity initiative (aims/objectives):
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.
Process Steps Summary:
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
22
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. TCAPP: Transportation for Communities - Advancing Projects through
Partnerships
(TCAPP) can improve how practitioners develop, prioritize, and inform transportation
plans and projects. 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. (transportationforcommunities.com)
Lead UNCG Member or other Practitioner: Shari Schaftlein, FHWA, 202-366-5570
shari.shaftlein@dot.gov
Organization/Sector: (Public, Private, NGO, combination):
TCAPP was developed through the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) second
Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2). TRB is one of six major divisions of the
National Research Council—a private, nonprofit institution that is the principal operating
agency of the National Academies in providing services to the government, the public,
and the scientific and engineering communities. The program is supported by state
23
transportation departments, federal agencies, including the modal administrations of the
U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in
the development of transportation.[i]
The material within TCAPP and the design and function of the website itself was
developed with input from users including: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA);
state departments of transportation (DOTs); metropolitan planning organizations
(MPOs); resource agencies, such as the US Army Corps of Engineers and the Fish and
Wildlife Service; and representatives of stakeholder organizations.
Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Context:
Congress has charged the SHRP2 Capacity program to: “Develop approaches and tools
for systematically integrating environmental, economic, and community requirements into
the analysis, planning, and design of new highway capacity.”[ii]
Transportation agencies today are charged with quicker delivery of the right
transportation so-lutions. To speed project delivery and have the flexibility to consider
nontraditional solutions, the entire organization needs a systematic approach to
collaboration, ensuring that the right people are engaged at the right time with the right
information. The foundation of TCAPP is a Decision Guide that provides this
systematic approach. It is delivered as a web-based resource that can be used as a
troubleshooting guide or a road map to changing a business process.
The Decision Guide was developed from 23 in-depth, detailed case studies of
innovative practices in collaborative transportation decision making; six workshops
bringing together partners and stakeholders of the transportation decision making
process; and an extensive process of review and refinement.
Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Initiative (aims/objectives):
TCAPP provides a systematic approach for reaching collaborative decisions about
increasing highway capacity that enhances the environment, stimulates the economy, and
supports community development. Supporting collaboration in transportation decision
making is a key principle of TCAPP; there are many features within the site that serve that
goal:
·
The Decision Guide identifies 44 key decisions in four phases of transportation
decision making: long-range transportation planning, corridor planning, programming,
and environmental review.
Key decisions are those that require review and approval from higher levels of authority
or a consensus among diverse decision makers before the project can advance. Policy
level decision should effectively link the many steps of planning and project
development. Many key decisions are common to most transportation agencies. Some
are defined by law; others follow established practice.
·
Applications within TCAPP make collaboration more accessible by extracting
the key information applicable to special topic areas and packaging it in smaller bites. For
example, there are Applications focused on visioning and transportation, the natural
environment, and linking planning and environmental review.
24
·
Assessments are used to identify barriers to successful project and plan
development – and find strategies for overcoming them. Each assessment consists of a
series of questions. Using user responses, TCAPP generates results indicating: (1) areas
that currently represent the greatest challenge to the user, (2) strategies to address those
challenges, and (3) recommendations for using TCAPP to help. There are two
assessments that specifically focus on collaboration: the Partner Collaboration
Assessment and the Stakeholder Collaboration Assessment.
·
The Partner Portal within TCAPP answers the questions:
o “Who makes transportation decisions?”
o “What do they care about?”
o “What are their roles?”
Information within the portal is structured so that each partner can quickly identify how
TCAPP is useful to them while allowing each partner to understand the perspective and
interests of others.
·
The Stakeholder Portal provides information both to help stakeholders
understand the transportation decision making process and their role, and to help
practitioners understand stakeholder interests and incorporate those interests in
transportation decision making.
Process Steps Summary:
Users can enter the tool through any of the paths described above. The information and
tools within TCAPP can be used by project managers, practitioners, partners, or
stakeholders and can be used individually or as a group. The structure of the Decision
Guide allows users to seek help from TCAPP at any point in the transportation decision
making process. TCAPP can be used to address a specific challenge area or to gain a
broad understanding of collaboration in transportation decision making.
Current Status:
A robust Beta version of TCAPP is publicly available on the Internet
(http://www.transportationforcommunities.com/shrpc01/) and is actively being
used. Enhancements to the site and integration of related research are ongoing.
Outcomes/Achievements:
Two sets of pilot tests of TCAPP and integrated research are underway. One set is
testing the tool holistically. Most of the pilots within this set are focused on how TCAPP
addresses collaboration with stakeholders and partners. The second set is focused
specifically on how TCAPP supports the integration of ecological planning and
transportation decision making through the Integrated Ecological Framework
(IEF). Additional pilot tests are planned.
SHRP2 is kicking off the development of a marketing and communications plan,
including high-level strategies and detailed tactics, which will help to:
·
Build awareness of TCAPP and its bundled specialized content among the
25
targeted audience(s).
·
Promote increased use of the current beta test version of TCAPP and any
improved versions that are available before the end of the SHRP 2 program in early 2015.
·
Develop and test a set of key marketing and communications messages aimed at
potential users of the TCAPP product.
·
Develop and test a brand for TCAPP that resonates with potential users and helps
communicate the product’s value.
·
Build a toolbox of communications and market tactics and materials for
marketing TCAPP and communicating its uses and value to transportation agencies and
the targeted users.[iii]
FHWA and other partners such as AASHTO are identifying transition plans for storage
and maintenance of the SHRP2 research products. Information Technology staff and
Program staff are evaluating options for integrating and linking these research products
into existing websites, clearinghouses, and technical assistance efforts.
[i] http://www.trb.org/AboutTRB/AboutTRB.aspx
[ii] http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/shrp2_pb_C01.pdf
[iii] http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=3234
6. Alberta Collaborative Governance Initiative
http://www.municipalaffairs.alberta.ca/1488.cfm
Lead UNCG Member or other Practitioner: Chris Carlson PCI
Organization/Sector: (Public, Private, NGO, combination): Public
Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Context:
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 intermunicipal relations.
Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Initiative (aims/objectives):
The Collaborative Governance Initiative (CGI) is a proactive approach to improve
municipal business and intermunicipal relations. The program gives municipal leaders an
opportunity to look internally and intermunicipally 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.
The CGI has two phases backed by grant money:
1. Assessment phase: collaborative principles, processes, and protocols are created by
consensus.
2. Implementation phase: municipal organizations implement the principles, processes,
and protocols which arose from the assessment phase.
26
Through the CGI, the Municipal Dispute Resolution Services team helps municipalities
assess whether collaborative governance is an appropriate fit and help convene the
process and ensure all the prerequisites are in place. Where appropriate, MDRS provides
for a cost-sharing arrangement between municipalities and Alberta Municipal Affairs to
cover part of the consultant's costs. Grant funding for the assessment phase can reach
$50,000, while grant funds for the implementation phase can reach $30,000 on a matching
basis. MDRS staff will assist municipalities in completing the necessary forms to access
grant money. Municipalities contract directly with consultants for their services. MDRS
can provide a list of consultants with municipal and/or CGI experience.
Process Steps Summary:
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.
Current Status: Ongoing
Outcomes/Achievements:
Municipalities across Alberta have developed collaboration protocols and agreements to
guide their business activities in ways that limit opportunities for conflict escalation. A
few examples are showcased below:
Municipalities big and small have had great success with the Collaborative Governance
Initiative. A few sample collaboration protocols and agreements are listed below:




Town of Cochrane & Rocky View County - The RancheHouse Accord
MD of Foothills & Town of Okotoks - Joint Planning Agreement
Town of Peace River & MD of Peace No. 135 - Inter-municipal Cooperation
Agreement
Northern Sunrise County & Town of Peace River
o Capital Cost Sharing Agreement
o Operational Cost Sharing Agreement
Municipalities have also realized the benefits of cooperation, as told by these stories:
 Town of Canmore - A Vision for a kinder, gentler community through
Alternative Dispute Resolution
 Sturgeon County, City of Edmonton, City of St. Albert & Town of
Morinville - A Process for Resolving Intermunicipal Disputes
 Town of Okotoks - Town Embraces Conflict
Other Resources – from 3/20/12 access to website
27
FEATURE VIDEOS - CGI Video Testimonials - Municipal leaders from across Alberta
have sat down with us to discuss their experiences with collaborative governance. View the Youtube
playlist!
Resources
 For more information on the CGI, download the printable brochure The
Smarter Way to Build Win-Win Solutions in Municipal Government (PDF)
 http://medianew.gov.ab.ca:8080/ramgen/ma/mediation/auma_040105.
rmIt's All About the Process (2006; 24 minutes) provides an inside look at
how a controversy laden public meeting can be reframed into a productive
encounter. Building on a municipal council’s desire to construct a new municipal
building, it shows how a neutral facilitator, using interest-based techniques, can
guide and focus the discussion, reducing the animosity and gain public
acceptance for a decision making process.
 More video resources are available from the UNC School of Government.
The School’s YouTube channel features three videos on the topic of
collaboration and strategic partnerships, originally created for Rick Morse’s
workshop for elected officials, Saving Money by Doing Business Together.
Want to create more collaborative processes for inter-municipal planning? Download the
report: A Process for Resolving Intermunicipal Issues (PDF)
7. California Emergency Management Interoperability Initiative (Adam Sutkus)
Lead UNCG Member or other Practitioner:
Adam Sutkus and other facilitator/mediators and subject matter experts at the Center for
Collaborative Policy, California State University, Sacramento
Organization/Sector: (Public, Private, NGO, combination):
Combination—primarily local first responders and state agencies
Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Context:
The 2005—2010 effort involved a multi-year effort to bring together all of the local and
state stakeholders involved with emergency communication policy and programs in
California and facilitate the development of long term strategic plans for the state.
Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity initiative (aims/objectives):
To develop first an initial, then subsequent, annual reports to the legislature outlining the
consensus view of California’s emergency communication local governments and state
agency stakeholders regarding the development and improvement of interoperable
communications capacity for the state.
Process Steps Summary:
California has two primary multi-party organizations tasked with addressing the state’s
critical communications challenges for disasters and emergencies.
28
The California Statewide Interoperability Executive Committee (CalSIEC)
http://www.calema.ca.gov/TechnologyOperations/Pages/calsiec.aspx and the Public
Safety Radio Strategic Planning Committee (PSRSPC)
http://rimsinland.oes.ca.gov/CTD/Public/psrspcweb.nsf/home?OpenForm represent
the diverse local and state first responder community.
CCP assisted both organizations to develop statewide communications interoperability
strategic plans that address current modernization challenges and federal mandates that
have evolved since the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and Gulf Coast hurricanes.
The planning effort allowed diverse first responder interests to address their specific
communication needs in a coordinated manner that covers the full range of geographical,
technical, operational and policy issues. Emergency responders at all levels in California
had been struggling to integrate standard procedures in the state with new federal systems
mandated as a result of recent national emergencies. Prior to facilitative, collaborative
involvement, the two main groups tasked with this coordination had been inactive and no
formal mechanism was in place to address critical coordination needs and mandates for
public safety. From 2005 to 2009, CCP assisted CalSIEC and PSRSPC with meeting
planning design and facilitation; charter development and stakeholder liaison; strategic
planning, and policy mediation for successful critical deliverables.
The integrated effort of coordinating these two primary organizations involved dozens of
stakeholders and diverse organizations statewide and has allowed for key partners to
successfully achieve consensus-based planning goals and several annual reports to the
legislature outlining California’s interoperable communication needs.
Current Status:
In the spirit of developing internal capacity, in 2010, CCP transitioned the facilitative and
project management of both Cal SIEC and PSRSPC back to the state office of emergency
services, once both groups were coordinated and fully functioning for ongoing
collaborative policy and program development work.
Outcomes/Achievements:
When this effort began in 2005, the PSRSPC was dysfunctional and on the verge of
ineffectiveness and non-participation; the CalSIEC was not active in California at all. The
state was required under statute to coordinate communication policy across agencies as
well as prepare for upcoming federally mandated changes—all of which were not
occurring due to stakeholder conflict, organizational confusion and policy inaction.
Through the design and facilitation of the effort, subsequent consensus-based strategic
plans were produced for the California legislature and the two organizations—PSRSPC
and CalSIEC—developed governance structures allowing for self-sustaining work
internally, as well as with each other.
29
IV.
COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY LITERATURE REVIEW
(March 27, 2012) Today, Tina and I discussed the Collaborative Capacity Literature Review, and tried
to get some clarity around our task. As a reminder, you asked me to work with Tina to clarify key
questions about updating the 2008 literature review and confirm that we can use the scope of that review
to support our guidance document.
We have some questions of clarification :
1.
What is the purpose of the guidance document? And, how do we envision that it
will be used? For example, with the guidance document be a companion piece to the
Collaborative Competencies Report (2011), one that tells agencies and organizations how
to develop capacities in those competencies?
BJ: I hope it will be a companion to the UNCG Collaborative Competencies report and advise agencies
and organizations on best practices in assessing and developing collaborative capacities.. I am hoping that
one version of the final product will be a report akin to the IBM Center on Business and Government
Reports (9000 words- with case e.g.s)
2.
Is there a plan for how the final product will be disseminated and used?
BJ: An IBM report disseminated through their network. 2. An online version 3. A possibly UNCG
publication like the first report.
3.
Who is the target audience for the competencies document?
BJ: Agency and organization leaders.
4.
How will the “literature review” we are currently working on be used to inform or
shape the guidance document? What is the purpose of doing this work? Will it be used to
assist the authors of the guidance document, and/or the readers of the guidance
document (e.g., organizations and agencies)? We want to understand how the
literature review will be sued so that we know how to shape and develop it.
30
BJ: a. Assist drafters in incorporating into their sections. b. Look for and extract "case examples"
described in the literature. c. an appendix in the final version (probably online)
5.
Are the revisions Tina made on track? We want to be sure we are hitting the mark
before we proceed.
Marci DuPraw: Mar 12. Hi, Bob - on quick glance, Tina's edits seem great. I'll need to
take a closer look. Question on my mind, though, is what is the right relationship of the
Work Group lit review to the SRA/USACE one. Here, Tina is kind of editing a published
doc (the latter being already "published" as an appendix to the USACE report). Wouldn't
it be more "academically correct" to either cross-reference that doc and add new thinking
in our fresh publication, or summarize the earlier lit review and explicitly articulate our
new / fresh additions? What's your thinking on this?
Mar 30 I'm hoping you will capture in the revised "package" going out this weekend my
earlier feedback on the revised lit review, in the form of the question about the right
relationship between our current writing project and the USACE lit review. It doesn't
“feel" correct" to edit an already-published doc. Instead, I suggest we x-reference and/or
summarize and build upon it.
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+Do
cuments
[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 programbased intergovernmental cooperation to place-based regional collaboration with nongovernmental 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 crossboundary 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.abstract
[2] See, http://www.policyconsensus.org/uncg/collaborativecompetencies.html
[3] 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
[4] A capacity for collaboration enhances the probability of mission completion and goal
achievement by leveraging dispersed and diverse networked resources. (Hansen &
Nohria, 2004). Collaborative capacity, as it relates to interagency collaboration, resonates
31
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
[7] Daniel Mazmanian & Shui-Yan Tang, USC
[8] Sources: numerous
[9] Definitions from OPM. Posted at https://www.opm.gov/ses/recruitment/ecq.asp
[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
[11] Authors added “political” to category heading to provide further clarification.
[12]For resources, see the International Association for Public Participation at
http://www.iap2.org/
The State of Collaboration in the Corps: A Field Perspective
Appendix B
DRAFT LITERATURE REVIEW ON COMPONENTS OF COLLABORATIVE
CAPACITY IN THE WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT ARENA
Prepared by SRA International, Inc. for the US Army Corps of Engineers’ Institute
for Water Resources
November 14, 2008
The State of Collaboration in the Corps: A Field Perspective
Appendix B
DRAFT LITERATURE REVIEW ON COMPONENTS OF COLLABORATIVE
CAPACITY IN THE WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT ARENA
Prepared by SRA International, Inc. for the US Army Corps of Engineers’
Institute for Water Resources
November 14, 2008
I. LITERATURE REVIEW ON COMPONENTS OF COLLABORATIVE
CAPACITY IN THE WATER RESOURCES PLANNING AND
MANAGEMENT ARENA
Prepared by SRA International, Inc. for the US Army Corps of Engineers’
Institute for Water Resources
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) seeks to assess its capacity to use
32
collaborative strategies in carrying out its mission in the water resources planning and
management arena. USACE’s mission is to provide quality, responsive engineering
services to the federal government, which often entails controversial water resources
planning and management initiatives. Water resource issues are often ripe for
collaborative problem solving because they typically span multiple geographic and
political boundaries and involve multiple agencies and other stakeholders with
interdependent interests; high stakes; complex scientific and technical issues with high
scientific uncertainty; and critical contributions of experts from a wide range of
scientific disciplines. For this reason, and because USACE’s think tank and resource
center, the Institute for Water Resources (IWR), has recently been officially
designated as the Corps’ Center of Expertise (CX) on public participation, dispute
resolution, and collaborative modeling approaches such as Shared Vision Planning
(SVP), IWR is the Agency’s lead on this “Collaborative Capacity Development
Initiative.”
This work comes after the Executive Branch and Corps leadership have issued
numerous statements of support for the use of collaborative approaches for addressing
environmental issues. Yet examinations of the Corps’ capacity to collaborate on such
issues have found unevenness in the level of commitment and ability of Corps
personnel to effectively involve external stakeholders and the public at large. This
recognition has prompted USACE to undertake a variety of efforts to ensure that its
personnel can effectively involve stakeholders and the public in future water projects
where appropriate. At the same time, however, USACE leaders must also consider
several critical realities that affect the Corps’ ability to collaborate, including the
challenge of working with agencies with conflicting authorities and missions, as well
as limited funding.
This literature review covers a wide cross-section of resources on collaborative
capacity, with a focus on its meaning in the context of water resources planning and
management. For purposes of this literature review, we use the definition of
“collaborative capacity” offered by Hocevar, Thomas and Jansen (2006) – “the ability
of organizations to enter into, develop, and sustain interorganizational systems in
pursuit of collective outcomes.”
We interpret this to include the ability of Corps personnel involved in water resources
planning and management to:
 Assess the dynamics involved in water resources planning and management
challenges and controversies;
 Make appropriate judgments about when and how to engage stakeholders to
most constructively address the issue in question and achieve the USACE
mission;
 Implement those strategies effectively; and ␣ Reflect on the efficacy of those
strategies, learn from both successes and failures, and adjust future issue
analyses, judgments, and stakeholder involvement strategies accordingly.
The goal of USACE’s internal assessment is to highlight current strengths in the
33
Corp’s collaborative capabilities, and identify areas that could be enhanced. USACE
has hired SRA International, Inc., to develop a capacity assessment tool for use in this
initiative, and the present literature review provides a foundation for the development
of that tool. In this review, we define “collaborative capacity” and elucidate it
components. We organized our findings using a “systems” framework. Thus, we
discuss five interdependent categories of collaborative capacities important to
USACE’s ability to plan and manage the nation’s water resources, as follows:
 Political Leadership;
 Individual Knowledge, Skills and Abilities;
 Time and Resources;
 Institutional Procedures; and
 Organizational Culture.
This literature review concludes with a brief discussion of implications for the design
of the Corps’ capacity assessment tool. Because collaborative capacity is a multilayered phenomenon, research from very diverse sectors have direct bearing on the
design of a collaborative capacity assessment instrument for USACE. While there is a
large quantity of pertinent literature, there is no single definitive source. This makes
the feedback of IWR and its Collaborative Capacity Development Initiative Review
Group extremely important to “ground truth” the components of collaborative capacity
that are most important to the Corps’ effectiveness in planning and managing the
country’s increasingly precious water resources. Once we reach closure on the
components of collaborative capacity to focus on in this assessment, SRA can conduct
a brief follow-up analysis of the metrics used by others to measure those specific
capacities. This analysis will inform our next steps in finalizing the survey instrument
for use in the IWR Collaborative Capacity Development Initiative.
II.
INTRODUCTION.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) seeks to assess its capacity to use
collaborative strategies in carrying out its mission in the water resources planning and
management arena. USACE’s mission is to provide quality, responsive engineering
services to the federal government, which often entails controversial water resources
planning and management initiatives. Water resource issues are often ripe for
collaborative problem solving because they typically span multiple geographic and
political boundaries and involve multiple agencies and other stakeholders with
interdependent interests; high stakes; complex scientific and technical issues with high
scientific uncertainty; and critical contributions of experts from a wide range of
scientific disciplines. For this reason, and because USACE’s think tank and resource
center, the Institute for Water Resources (IWR), has recently been officially
designated as the Corps’ Center of Expertise (CX) on public participation, dispute
resolution, and collaborative modeling approaches such as Shared Vision Planning
(SVP), IWR is the Agency’s lead on this “Collaborative Capacity Development
Initiative.”
USACE’s assessment will highlight current strengths in the Corp’s capabilities, and
34
identify areas that could be enhanced. USACE has hired SRA International, Inc., to
develop the capacity assessment tool for use in this initiative, and the present literature
review provides a foundation for the development of that tool.3 This literature review
defines “collaborative capacity” and elucidates it components. We organized our
findings using a “systems” framework. Thus, we discuss the components of
collaborative capacity in five categories, reflecting the following five interdependent
components of the system through which collaborative capacity operates within
USACE: political leadership; individual knowledge, skills and abilities; time and
resources; institutional procedures; and organizational culture. We conclude with a
brief discussion of implications for the design of the Corps’ capacity assessment tool.
II. POLICY CONTEXT
For purposes of this literature review, we use the definition of “collaborative capacity”
offered by Hocevar, Thomas and Jansen (2006) – “the ability of organizations to enter
into, develop, and sustain interorganizational systems in pursuit of collective
outcomes.” Hocevar et al suggest that “a capacity for collaboration enhances the
probability of mission completion by leveraging dispersed resources.” As pointed out
by Hansen and Nohria (2004) in Hocevar, “the benefits of developing collaborative
capabilities 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 crosspollination of ideas and recombination of scarce
resources.” The Executive Branch and Corps leadership have issued numerous
statements of support for the use of collaborative approaches for addressing
environmental issues. For example:
 In 2004, President Bush signed an executive order introducing the “Cooperative
Conservation” initiative to further promote the use of collaborative processes
by federal agencies to manage a range of environmental issues.
 In 2005, the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Council
on Environmental Quality (CEQ) jointly issued a “Memorandum on
Environmental Conflict Resolution.” The memo directed federal agencies to
develop “strategies to prevent or reduce environmental conflicts and generate
opportunities for constructive collaborative problem solving when
appropriate,” to invest in such strategies, and to report on progress at least
annually to the Director of OMB and the Chairman of the CEQ (President’s
Office of Management and Budget and President’s Council on Environmental
Founded in 1978, SRA is dedicated to solving complex problems of global significance for
government organizations serving the national security, civil government, and health care and public
health markets. For this project, the SRA team includes: Marci DuPraw – the lead designer and
implementer of the capacity assessment tool, MS in natural resource policy, economics and
management; Tim McGonigle – PhD in industrial/organizational psychology; Luke Brooks-Shesler –
MA in Industrial and Organizational Psychology; Jeff Knishkowy – systems design expert; Allison
Remick – conflict and collaboration analyst; Samantha Levine – BS in environmental science and MS
in conflict analysis and resolution.
3
35
Quality, 2005).
 According to USACE Circular 1105-2-409(6): “Collaborative planning is ...
essential to the success of watershed scale planning” (Planning in a
Collaborative Environment 2005).
 The Corps’ 2004-2009 Civil Works strategic plan states that: “We are
committed to collaborate through an ongoing dialogue with stakeholders to
forge solutions to water problems that are economically viable, socially
acceptable, and environmentally responsible – sustainable. ...Clearly,
collaboration is essential to bring together the expertise on natural and human
systems over the appropriate geographic area, knowledge of problems that
exist, and the range of current and potential uses for water resources”
(Department of the Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works) Strategic Plan:
Fiscal Year 2004 - Fiscal Year 2009 2004).
 The Campaign Plan of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Implementation
Guidance, in which at least two of the four goals encompass directly relevant
objectives (Department of the Army Corps of Engineers undated). More
specifically:
 Goal 2 is to "Deliver enduring and essential water resources solutions
through collaboration with partners and stakeholders." Objective 2b of
this goal is to "Implement collaborative approaches to effectively solve
water resource problems.”
 Goal 4 of the Campaign Plan is to “Build and cultivate a competent,
disciplined, and resilient team equipped to deliver high quality
solutions.” Objective 4b under this goal is to “Communicate
strategically and transparently. This includes the objective of building
relationships both internally and externally, to foster collaborative
partnerships with key stakeholders, and to inform and educate the
public about USACE.”
Collaboration on environmental issues has occurred with increasing frequency over
the past 40 years. However, it has truly proliferated since the 1990s, when the federal
government passed laws authorizing agencies to engage in alternative dispute
resolution and created the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution
(Natural Resource Management: Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Participation
in Collaborative Efforts to Reduce Conflicts and Improve Natural Resource Condition
2008).
Past examinations of the Corps’ capacity to collaborate on such matters have found
unevenness in the level of commitment and ability of Corps personnel to effectively
work with stakeholders and the public from district-to-district and project-to-project.
Recognition of that reported unevenness in the Corps’ collaborative capacity has
prompted USACE to undertake a variety of effort to ensure that its personnel can
effectively relate to and involve stakeholders and the public in future collaborative
projects involving water issues (An Organizational Assessment of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers in Regard to Public Involvement Practices and Challenges 1996;
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), 2008). The subject
36
assessment of the Corps’ capacity to engage in collaborative capacity where such
efforts would help accomplish the USACE mission is intended to lay a foundation for
enhancing the Corps’ collaborative capacities, consistent with the abundant policy
direction laid out above.
There are, however, critical realities that must be considered when exploring the
notion of increasing the Corps’ involvement in collaborative processes. Federal
agencies have different – and sometimes conflicting – missions that they are legally
obligated to pursue. Thus, Structural barriers to collaboration must be acknowledged
up front when the choice of strategies is being considered.
Conflict can be seen as a sign of a healthy democracy -- an indication that all issues
are being surfaced, aired, and considered. Collaboration is not always the way to go.
Sometimes – e.g., when a legal precedent is sought or when power imbalances are
large – an issue may be better resolved in court. In addition, it is important to
recognize that whenever the Corps pursues collaborative strategies, there is always the
possibility that agreement will not be forthcoming. Some of the organizations involved
may have interests that cannot be aligned with those of the Corps. It is possible –
though not the usual course of events -- that there will ultimately be more conflict as a
result of the effort to collaborate. In addition, although one hope that a decision
reached collaboratively will be far less problematic and costly to implement,
collaborative planning can be resource-intensive on the front-end. Thus, USACE
personnel need to carefully assess when and where collaborative strategies are the best
approach for advancing the Corps’ mission.
Where used appropriately, collaborative solutions to complex water resources
planning and management challenges can be expected to yield broadly-supported
decisions, realistic plans that can be implemented smoothly, and robust working
relationships with stakeholders with whom the Corps needs to work long into the
future.
III. APPROACH
Defining Collaborative Capacity Development. USACE is in the midst of
considering recommendations to establish formal capacity development programs
across its national and international sectors (Capacity Development White Paper
(draft), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2008). In the above-referenced initiative,
“capacity development” is defined as the “... building of human, institutional and
infrastructure capacity to help societies develop secure, stable and sustainable
economies, governments and other institutions through mentoring, training, education,
and physical projects, the infusion of financial and other resources, and most
importantly, the motivation and inspiration of people to improve their lives.” Innes and
Booher (2003) suggest that a “governance system with capacity can learn, experiment,
and adapt creatively to threats and opportunities. It is characterized by regular
interaction among diverse players who solve problems or complete new tasks by
working together.”
37
The movement toward “capacity development” is in part a function of growing interest
in the practice of collaborative governance, which can be defined as “the processes and
structures of public policy decision making and management that engage people
constructively across the boundaries of public agencies, levels of government, and/or
the public, private and civic spheres in order to carry out a public purpose that could
not otherwise be accomplished” (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012: 2). While
collaboration has always existed, the understanding that collaboration is necessary to
accomplish the work of government is becoming ever clearer. In turn, this has pushed
scholars and practitioners to better understand how to generate, maintain, and promote
collaborative capacity.
We found several definitions of “collaborative capacity” in the literature. Goodman et
al. (1998) define it to mean “the conditions needed for coalitions to promote effective
collaboration” and build sustainable change. As mentioned earlier, Hocevar et al
define collaborative capacity as “the ability of organizations to enter into, develop,
and sustain interorganizational systems in pursuit of collective outcomes. In this
literature review, we adopt the above definition of Hocevar et al, and interpret it to
include the ability of Corps personnel involved in water resources planning and
management to:
 Assess site-specific and policy-level issues;
 Make appropriate judgments about when and how to engage stakeholders to
most constructively address the issue in question in the context of the
USACE mission
 Implement those strategies effectively; and
 Reflect on the efficacy of those strategies, learn from both successes and
failures,
and adjust future issue analyses, judgments, and stakeholder involvement
strategies accordingly.
Defining a Systems Framework Through Which to Understand the Corps’
Collaborative Capacity. The SRA team briefly reviewed systems design literature to
help us establish a systems framework through which to understand the components of
collaborative capacity. Our assumption in doing so was that this would help us:
 Design an assessment tool that would pinpoint parts of USACE’s collaborative
capacity that currently function with excellence and parts that could be
enhanced; and
 Subsequently enable us to most efficiently strengthen and fine-tune that system
for optimal results.
A system may be defined as a “set of interrelated components, acting with a common
purpose, that exchanges information and energy with its environment” (Diamond and
McDonald 1996). Diamond and McDonald further explain that systems are:
 Made up of subsystems;
 Engage in activities that can leave the whole in a different state;
 Have means of self-regulation and adaptation that allow them to change over
time;
 A context in which they operate.
38
When it comes to large organizations, researchers have added the additional concept of
complexity to describe entities that have several subsystems; in non-linear systems,
such as federal agencies, changing one subsystem can drastically change the behavior
of the whole system (Anderson 1999). In using a systems approach to analyzing
organizations, each component, such as human resources and financial management,
can be thought of as having a distinct role and culture, but each also relies on the other
components to achieve overall organizational performance (Constantino and Merchant
1996). A systems analysis examines how well those subsystems “collectively interact
in order to discover how to improve them” (Constantino and Merchant), rather than
focusing on one element as a self-supporting entity. The strength and dependability of
the systems in place can either support or hinder organizational goals, such as the use
of collaboration by agency personnel.
The literature on collaborative processes encompasses several different systems
frameworks that can be used for analyzing organizational collaborative capacity. For
instance, in the context of developing capacity in community coalitions, FosterFishman et al (Foster- Fishman et al. 2001) examine core capacities at three levels:
1.
Individual level:
a.
Core skills and knowledge;
b.
Core attitudes motivation;
c.
Relational capacity of individual members.
2. Organizational level:
a.
Effective leadership;
b.
Formalized procedures;
c.
Effective communication;
d.
Sufficient resources;
e.
Continuous improvement orientation.
3. Programmatic level:
a.
Realistic goals;
b.
Unique and innovative;
c.
Ecologically valid.
Paul Mattessich et al reviewed the success factors for organizations involved in
collaborations. They place the factors into six categories: (1) Environment; (2)
Membership; (3) Process and structure; (4) Communications; (5) Purpose; and (6)
Resources (Mattessich, Monsey, and Murray-Close 2001).
Beyerlein et al (2003) proposed a set of principles to characterize effective interorganizational collaboration. Extrapolating from these principles, the following list of
organizational components emerges: (1) Communication and education; (2)
Organizational support (leadership, information-sharing); (3) Skills, knowledge and
abilities (individual and organizational levels); (4) Personal accountability (culture);
(5) Alignment of authority, information and decision-making; and (6) Organizational
process.
39
In exploring success factors and barriers related to the capacities of organizations to
engage in inter-organizational collaboration in the homeland security context,
Hocevar, Thomas and Jansen (2006) relied up a systems framework developed by
Galbraith (2002 in Hocevar, Thomas and Jansen 2006). Gailbraith’s framework is
conceptualized as a five-pointed star, with the points representing the following
system components: (1) Strategy; (2) Structure; (3) People; (4) Incentives; and (5)
Lateral Mechanisms.
There is also a wealth of conceptual frameworks that are grounded in empirical study,
For example, there are frameworks for: cross-sector collaboration (Bryson, Crosby,
and Stone 2006), collaborative planning (Bentrup 2001; Innes and Booher 1999; Selin
and Chavez 1995), collaboration processes (Daniels and Walker 2001; Ring and Van
de Ven 1994; Thomson and Perry 2006; Wood and Gray 1991), network management
(Koppenjan and Klijn 2004; Milward and Provan 2000), collaborative public
management (Agranoff and McGuire 2001; Cooper, Bryer, and Meek 2006; Leach
2006), environmental governance and conflict resolution (Agrawal and Lemos 2007;
Emerson et al. 2009), and collaborative governance (Ansell and Gash 2008).
Following a review of these and other frameworks, Emerson, Nabatchi and Balogh
(2012) developed an integrative framework for collaborative governance. This
integrative framework consists of three nested dimensions: the general system context,
the collaborative governance regime (CGR), and its collaborative dynamics and
actions. The general system context, which includes the numerous political, legal,
socioeconomic, environmental and other influences that affect and are affected by the
CGR, generates opportunities and constraints and influences the dynamics of the
collaboration at the outset and over time. From this system emerge several drivers of
collaboration, including leadership, consequential incentives, interdependence, and
uncertainty, which help initiate and set the direction for a CGR. The CGR is further
shaped by 1) collaborative dynamics, including principled engagement, shared
motivation, and capacity for joint action, and 2) collaborative actions, or the steps
taken to implement the shared purpose of the CGR. These collaborative actions can
lead to outcomes both within and external to the regime, as well as impacts, and
adaptation (the transformation of a complex situation or issue) both within the system
context and the CGR itself.
For purposes of this literature review, SRA distilled from the aforementioned
resources and our own experiences the following list of five critical system
components that translates well into the arena of federal organizations and provides a
well-rounded portrait of the elements required for successful engagement in
collaboration with external stakeholders:
1.
Political leadership / authority and empowerment to use collaboration where
appropriate;
2.
Knowledge, skills, and abilities;
3.
Time and resources;
4.
Institutional procedures that reward use of these strategies; and
40
5.
Organizational culture.
Sources. SRA conducted a comprehensive review of resources on collaborative
capacity, with a particular focus on its meaning in the context of water resources
planning and management. This review included several USACE documents that
provide context for collaborative work, such as “USACE 2012”; “An Organizational
Assessment of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Regard to Public Involvement
Practices and Challenges (An Organizational Assessment of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers in Regard to Public Involvement Practices and Challenges 1996); and
“When Partnering Doesn’t Work (Well)” (Creighton & Creighton undated).
In addition, this review included peer-reviewed academic journals; the Google Scholar
database; the Policy Consensus Council; the literature on systems design; and
materials from the SRA team members’ personal libraries on environmental
collaboration. Due to the limited literature specifically on how to measure
collaborative capacity in the water resources, we allowed ourselves a bit wider latitude
in sources for this portion of the literature review. We found very relevant work going
on in the homeland security arena (see, for example, Hocevar, Thomas, and Jansen
2006).
IV. FINDINGS: COMPONENTS OF COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY
In this section, we summarize what the available literature suggests are the specific
components of collaborative capacity associated with each of the five system
components discussed above: political leadership/authority and empowerment to use
collaboration where appropriate; knowledge, skills, and abilities; time and resources;
institutional procedures; and organizational culture.
A. Political leadership/authority and empowerment
The inter-organizational, inter-governmental and multi-disciplinary nature of
collaborative processes involving water resources necessarily means that such efforts
require strong political leadership (Jones 2005). As Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh
(2012: 9) note, “the presence of an identified leader who is in a position to initiate and
help secure resources and support for a CGR” is an “essential driver” of collaboration.
Such a leader may be a deciding official, a member of a collaborating party, or located
in a trusted boundary organization.
Those convening collaborative efforts must have:
 The authority to encourage this practice;
 Support from agency management to implement decisions; and
 The power to reprogram budgets to support development of collaborative
initiatives, monitoring and evaluation of collaborative processes.
Moreover, the leaders should possess “a commitment to collaborative problem
solving, a willingness not to advocate for a particular solution, and exhibit impartiality
with respect to the preferences of participants” (citing Bryson, Crosby, and Stone
2006; Selin and Chavez 1995). Moreover, the leaders should exhibit a willingness to
41
absorb the high (and potentially constraining) transaction costs of initiating a
collaborative effort, for example, by providing staffing, technologies, and other
resources may help reinforce the endeavor (e.g., Schneider et al. 2003).
In addition, political support is also required to establish pilot or demonstration
projects to educate and build support for collaboration, engage in cross-project and
interagency training, and support interagency forums and workshops to build expertise
and skills (Interagency Initiative to Foster Collaborative Problem Solving and
Environmental Conflict Resolution, Briefing Report for Federal Department
Leadership 2004 (revised 2005)). Capable leaders will be able to:
 Emphasize the benefits of collaboration – not only benefits to the partnership as
a whole, but to every individual and organization involved;
 Identify leaders who can help the parties capture and name what they are doing;
 Promote an orientation towards continuous improvement (Foster-Fishman et al.).
Hocevar, Thomas, and Jansen (2006) suggest that it is important to the success of an
inter- organizational collaboration that those initiating such a collaborative endeavor:
 Experience a “felt need” to collaborate;
 Share a recognition for the benefits of collaboration;
 Are not experiencing rivalry with other participating organizations;
 Have leadership support and commitment;
 Have social capital (defined as interpersonal networks) at the top, mid-level, and
operating core of the organization;
 Recognize common goals or interdependence among participants in the
collaborative effort; and
 Are able to structure the collaborative effort to accommodate interests of all
participating organizations.
They also note that it is important that participants (not just convenors) have the
authority and accountability to negotiate and make decisions on behalf of their
respective organizations.
B. Knowledge, skills, and abilities
While much of the collaboration literature examines formal organizations and
established jurisdictions, collaborative endeavors are enacted by individuals.
“Effective collaboration is deeply dependent upon the skills of officials and managers.
Organizations may appear to collaborate, but in fact it is individuals representing
organizations who collaborate (Frederickson, 2007:16). These individuals, and the
relationships among these individuals are essential to getting things done in a
collaborative endeavor (Huxham, 2000: 341; 2005: 74). Thus, a critical component of
collaborative capacity is the specific knowledge, skills and abilities
(KSAs) necessary for individuals to successfully and effectively engage in
collaborative
projects such as those involving water issues. (See table in Appendix C, which outlines
and groups these KSAs into several overarching categories.)
42
A significant volume of research on collaborative KSAs has been conducted. For
example, based on their extensive experience as facilitators and mediators of public
disputes, as well as an extensive review of nine different published sources, Emerson
and Smutko (2011) present a framework of five collaborative competencies that
encompass ten specific skill sets which together constitute what the authors call
“collaborative competence”. The five collaborative competencies and ten skills sets
include:
1. Leadership and Management Competency (includes the skills set “strengthening
collaborative leadership” and “planning, organization and managing for
collaboration”);
2. Process Competency (includes the skills sets “communicating effectively”;
“working in teams and facilitating groups”; and “negotiating agreement and
managing conflict”);
3. Analytical Competency (includes the skills sets “applying analytical skills and
strategic thinking” and “evaluation and adapting processes”);
4. Knowledge Management Competency (includes the skill set “integrating
technical and scientific information” and “using information and communication
technology”; and
5. Professional Accountability Competency (includes the skill set “maintaining
personal integrity and professional ethics”).
In a survey of 417 county emergency managers across the U.S., McGuire and Silvia
(2009, 2010) and Silvia and McGuire (2010) asked managers to compare the
frequency of various leadership behaviors exhibited in their agencies with the
frequency that they exhibit those same behaviors in their collaborative network. The
behaviors were divided into three categories: people-oriented (e.g., treating all network
members as equals), task-oriented (e.g., coordinating the work of the network), and
organization-oriented (e.g., identifying resources).
They found that leaders in collaborative networks focus more on people-oriented
behaviors and less on task-oriented behaviors when compared with traditional
management or leadership.
Getha-Taylor (2008) reported the results of her study of collaborative competencies
among public sector leaders in the United States. She found a mismatch between what
human resource managers believe collaborative competencies to be and what
exemplary collaborators demonstrate. The competencies of effective public sector
collaborators found by Getha-Taylor include: values other people‘s perspectives on
shared problems; demonstrates empathy, supports altruistic behavior via example;
does not expect a return on investment; treats others as equals regardless of rank;
shares resources; uses boundary-spanning language to find shared meaning; listens;
develops close relationships; seeks win-win solutions; understands how to motivate
the group; understands needs for power, affiliation, and achievement; demonstrates
enthusiasm in connecting personal effort with larger outcomes; adapts his or her own
strategies to what the group needs; defers to others‘ expertise when appropriate; uses
collaborative conflict resolution; welcomes conflict for purpose of gaining new
perspective; creates lines of sight; identifies outcomes that benefit all involved
43
partners; identifies opportunities for collaboration that connect organizational goals
with public service goals; connects collaborative effort with noble public sector
outcomes; balances needs of his or her own organization with needs of others; has an
inclusive achievement perspective; and is reluctant to take credit for collaborative
outcomes.
Similarly, Williams (2002: 121) attempted to “build a framework of competencybased variables and factors that influence collaborative engagement, behavior and
management.” Using a combination of surveys and in-depth interviews, Williams
found that the important skill set of the effective collaborator includes:
communicating, listening, understanding, and empathizing; influencing, negotiating,
creating trust, and networking; resolving conflict; and managing complexity and
interdependencies, as well as managing roles, accountabilities and motivations.
Williams also discusses the importance of personality traits, mentioning the specific
traits of being respectful, honest, open, tolerant, approachable, reliable, and sensitive.
Building on the research cited above, O’Leary, Choi, and Gerard (2012) surveyed 305
U.S. Senior Executive Service (SES) members to identify the skill sets of the
successful collaborator. The respondents to their survey reported that collaborative
competencies involve personal attributes and characteristics, interpersonal skills,
group process skills, strategic leadership skills, and substantive and technical
expertise.
The Office of Personnel Management’s Core Executive Qualifications (ECQ) for
members of the Senior Executive Service provides the basis for our framework of
essential KSAs. (see Appendix 1) Federal agencies tasked with implementing
Executive Order 13352 (Cooperative Conservation), including the Department of
Defense, have similarly derived from the ECQ several individual competencies as
being fundamental to the success of cooperative conservation (Response to memo on
Executive Order 13352 2006). The first eight competencies listed in Table 1 are cited
by several agencies (Departments of Defense, Interior and Agriculture, and the
Environmental Protection Agency) as the suite of cooperative cooperation
competencies; the final four were added by the authors based on this literature review.
C. Time and Resources
The success of any collaborative effort depends in large part on the amount and type of
resources dedicated to the project. Time is among the most basic, and yet most critical,
of these resources. Collaborative projects are often long-term (multi-year) efforts that
require organizations and individuals to participate in regular meetings; plan and
budget for their participation; gather data; engage in research; monitor progress;
implement decisions; and evaluate outcomes (Koontz et al. 2004). Hocevar et al
suggest that inter-organizational collaborative endeavors are more likely to succeed if
they have dedicated assets to support the collaboration, including people and
44
resources. Useful resources may include funding, time, technical and logistical
support; administrative and organizational assistance; requisite skills for analysis or
implementation; and needed expertise, among others (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh
2012). Power can also be viewed as a resource and, like other resources, is almost
always distributed unevenly across participants (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone 2006;
Huxham and Vangen 2005). Furthermore, “resource disparities among participants are
often highlighted in cross-cultural settings, where language, customs, and culture can
present barriers to engagement” and “the perceived and real fairness, legitimacy, and
efficacy of [collaborative arrangements] can depend on how well these resource
differences are managed” (Emerson, Nabatchi, and Balogh 2012: 16; see also Milward
and Provan 2000; Thomson and Perry 2006).
For the purposes of this work, the necessary resources can be divided into three
categories: human, technical and financial (Koontz et al.).
1.Human resources: These resources include personnel and the capabilities they bring
to the collaboration. There are several individuals and types of staff members who are
key to supporting collaborative projects. This list comes from multiple sources
(including Saving Bays and Estuaries: A Primer for Establishing and Managing
Estuary Projects 1989; Innes, Connick, and Booher 2007)
o Leader or director who is answerable and accountable to the stakeholder group
as a whole;
o Program manager or staff director experienced in planning, operating and
budgeting, and sensitive to stakeholder and public concerns;
o Experienced public participation specialists to serve as staff to stakeholder
groups and liase with the public;
o Staff members experienced in the development and evaluation of management
strategies and with in-depth understanding of major federal and state statutes
and implementing regulations affecting water issues;
o Scientists knowledgeable about the scientific issues at hand; o Communications
staff who can keep information flowing through the network;
o Political decision-makers who have the authority to enter into commitments,
o Memoranda of Understanding, or other agreements that provide durability and
stability for collaborative efforts; and
o Neutral facilitators selected by the parties.
2. Financial resources: This component primarily entails the funding that the
collaboration receives, but also includes the needs to (Koontz et al, Saving Bays;
Estuaries: A Primer for Establishing and Managing Estuary Projects; Eco-logical: An
Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects 2006; Creighton 2008):
o Identify a way to pay for each action;
o Engage in cost-sharing with other agencies/organizations;
o Develop a financial strategy;
o Access revenues for materials, staffing, facilities, travel/per diems manage the
o flow of funds;
o Recommend methods to oversee financial planning;
45
o Identify new sources of funding, including:
 Access authorities and public funding appropriation mechanisms at the local,
regional, state and federal levels; and
 Find funding matches through partnering with private sector or non- profit
organizations;
o Support the participation of various stakeholders, some of whom may face
financial constraints that would otherwise limit their participation;
o Implement funding procedures that support long-term objectives, as well as short
short-term projects; and
o Avoid treating each budget year as an “exception.”
3. Technical resources: This component encompasses the capacities to: o Provide
access to scientific information and expertise (Scholz and Stiftel,
2005);
o Provide technical support to those who need assistance in presenting their views
at problem-solving forums;
o Provide access to technical advisors who can interact with participants and
answer questions;
o Commission new scientific research;
o Support training opportunities (leadership, negotiation, partnering, etc.); and
o Provide assistance in determining collaboration’s structure, guidelines.
D. Institutional Procedures
An entity’s internal processes and procedures may either support or impede its
capacity to participate in collaborative projects. Organizations need procedures that
allow them to institutionalize policies, rules, norms and practices of collaboration, as
well as create channels that support high levels of commitment to shared policies,
resource allocation and cooperation (Imperial 2005). These organizational processes
can strengthen an organization’s capacity to:
 Collect public knowledge;
 Share that knowledge internally in a timely and efficient way;
 Communicate findings with citizens in a timely manner;
 Apply internal measures to gauge how effectively staff are using civic
engagement;
 Implement a system to seek out public knowledge; and
 Develop protocols to determine where, when and how to engage the public
(Standards of Excellence in Civic Engagement 2005).
Procedural and institutional arrangements encompass the range of process protocols
and organizational structures necessary to manage repeated interactions over time. The
conflict resolution literature indentifies dimensions such as agreements to mediate
groundrules, operating protocols, decision rules, and so forth, but these are insufficient
for longer term collaborations where informal norms must be supplemented with more
formal institutional design factors such as charters, by-laws, rules, and regulations. In
other words, larger, more complex, and long-lived collaborative networks require
46
more explicit structures and protocols for the administration and management of work
(Milward and Provan 2000, 2006).
These procedural and institutional arrangements must be defined at both the intraorganizational level (i.e., how a single group or organization will govern and manage
itself in the collaborative initiative) and at the inter-organizational level (i.e., how the
groups of organizations will govern and manage together in the CGR and integrate
with external decision making authorities). In general, the internal authority structure
of collaborative institutions tends to be less hierarchical and stable, and more complex
and fluid, than those found in traditional bureaucracies (Bryson, Crosby, and Stone
2006; Huxham and Vangen 2005). Such structures and protocols may vary by
function, for example, taking on the shape of informational, developmental, outreach,
or action networks (Agranoff and McGuire 2003), and by form, for example, being
administered as a self-managing system, by a designated lead agency or agencies, or
with the creation of a new governmental structure (Milward and Provan 2006).
The protocols that govern collaborative endeavors may be informal ‘‘norms of
reciprocity’’ and/or more formal rules of network interactions (Thomson and Perry
2006). They may also distinguish interaction rules from arena rules in networks
(Koppenjan and Klijn 2004). The common pool resource literature has contributed
greatly to our understanding of the importance of rules, including constitutional rules,
laying out the basic scope and authorities for joint effort, decision making rules, and
operating procedures (Bingham 2009; Ostrom 1990).
Before beginning a collaborative project, an organization should have the capacity to
engage in an assessment presenting an impartial analysis of the problem that
collaboration would help resolve. This is vital to laying the groundwork for effective
collaboration (Bean, Fisher, and Eng 2007). Such processes allow organizations to
identify stakeholders and key issues, analyze the feasibility of moving forward, and
design a work plan for proceeding. In addition, the capacity to conduct an assessment
may result in stronger rapport between parties, illuminate multiple solutions, identify
barriers to and opportunities for reaching agreement, and offer a reference point for
analyzing progress.
Hocevar, Thomas, and Jansen (2006) suggest that the success of a collaborative
initiative is enhanced if collaboration is a prerequisite for funding or other resources
(e.g, built into a request for proposals that the groups are responding to together). They
also suggest that collaborative initiatives are more likely to succeed if they have:






A formalized coordination committee or liaison roles;
Formalized processes (e.g., meetings, agendas, deadlines);
Role clarity;
Joint training events for participants;
Effective communication and information exchange mechanisms; and
Technical interoperability between organizations.
Finally, Institutional procedures that are supportive of collaboration fall into the
47
following categories:

Communication Procedures
o Allow individuals to speak directly with one another, rather than require them to
follow rigid chains of command (Innes, Connick, and Booher), and work
through a network, not a hierarchy;
o Coordinate the actions of other organizations;
o Reduce information asymmetries by encouraging the formation of work groups,
task forces, and advisory committees;
o Hold periodic national or regional conferences to share collaborative
experiences, identify further challenges, and learn lessons from others; and
o Promote consistent terminology and data and performance measures across
agencies.

Procedures for Fostering External Awareness
o Support interaction with politicians and upper-level agency official;
o Identify and evaluate legal and financial policy changes that would enhance
collaborative; and
o Reconcile conflicting priorities among agencies or field offices, or national,
regional, and local concerns.

Procedures for Accessing Resources to Support Collaboration
o Pool organizational resources (funding, staff, equipment);
o De-compress planning periods to make it easier to re-mobilize staff;
o Support field staff interested in such efforts – i.e., assign staff according to their
skill; allow staff to become acquainted with a community to work better with
local groups; provide flexibility for employees to work with these communities
(Natural Resource Management: Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal
Participation in Collaborative Efforts to Reduce Conflicts and Improve Natural
Resource Condition 2008);
o Allow organizations to absorb the transaction costs associated with organizing,
supporting, or conducting collaborative activities at higher levels;
o Support plans to hire new people with collaborative skills; o Common
databases, shared technical resources, integrated resource inventories and other
forms of data synthesis (Imperial 2005);
o Offer training on negotiation, partnering, collaboration methods; and
o Provide incentives to collaborate at the individual and organizational level
(Imperial and Hennessey 2000).

Evaluation Procedures
o Support the creation of an action plan that identifies how progress will be
measured for each target;
o Allow leaders to establish an evaluation system for each goal of the partnership
48
(Ferreyra and Beard 2007);
o Direct collaborative managers to negotiate indicators for evaluation among
stakeholders; and
o Establish agency-wide guidance, performance metrics, and monitoring of the use
of environmental conflict resolution to foster deeper understanding of the value
of the practice.
Regarding USACE’s interactions with tribal governments, the capacity for
collaboration may increase through policies that require leaders to take training on
Corps-government relations and communication, trust-building and consultation with
tribes, as well as programs that document interrelationships between project operations
and Native American interests (An Organizational Assessment of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers in Regard to Public Involvement Practices and Challenges 1996).
E. Organizational Culture
The culture of an organization has the power to shape, guide and influence every
activity in which it becomes involved. Culture affects an organization much like it
does an individual, by creating worldviews, perceptions and meanings as well as ideas
of what is right and wrong, useful or useless (Goldberg 2008). For that reason, culture
constitutes a primary determinant of an organization’s success when it comes to
intensive, multifaceted endeavors such as collaboration on water resource issues. An
organization with a culture that devalues partnering, innovation, outreach, diversity,
and skill-building, to name a few key ingredients in collaboration, will suffer in its
efforts to engage in public participation. On the other hand, there are numerous aspects
of organizational culture that would support an entity’s work in this arena, including
the related characteristics of:
 Flexibility:
o Readiness to adapt to changes and circumstances;
o Avoid rigid bureaucratic structures; and
o Set/reset expectations that make sense (Making Community Coalitions Work
o 1993).
 Resiliency: The ability to respond quickly to new conditions, events, opportunities
and problems as needed (Innes and Booher 2003)
In addition to considering the elements of organizational culture that are supportive of
collaboration, following is a list of attributes, activities and attitudes that, if embedded
in an organization’s culture, could lead it to encounter difficulty in collaboration:
 Minimization of collaborative activities;
 Risk aversion and lack of trust among participating agencies (How to Engage
LowLiteracy and Limited-English-Proficiency Populations in Transportation
Decisionmaking 2006);
 Belief that regulations are inflexible;
 Perception of others that organization is unreliable (Creighton 2008);
 Conflicting missions of agencies/engineers working with scientists;
49








Difficulty managing local sponsors’ expectations;
Mistrust in federally sponsored collaborative processes (Creighton 2008);
Perceived failures of previous interagency cooperative efforts;
Long-held, highly entrenched and polarized positions;
Resistance to change;
Lack of a visible champion for collaboration within the Corps;
Limited view of the value of collaboration; and
Existence of turf issues (Imperial 2005).
These issues speak to the need for an analysis of the systems context before embarking
on a collaborative endeavor. In addition to organizational culture, collaboration
evolves within a multilayered context of political, legal, socioeconomic,
environmental, and other influences (Borrini-Feyerabend 1996). For example, scholars
have identified several elements that may affect collaboration, including resource
conditions in need of improving, increasing, or limiting (e.g., Ostrom 1990); policy
and legal frameworks, including administrative, regulatory, or judicial (e.g., Bingham
2008); prior failure to address the issues through conventional channels and authorities
(e.g., Bryson and Crosby 2008); political dynamics and power relations within
communities and among/across levels of government (e.g., Ansell and Gash 2008);
degree of connectedness within and across existing networks (e.g., Selin and Chavez
1995); historic levels of conflict among recognized interests and the resulting levels of
trust and impact on working relationships (e.g., Ansell and Gash 2008; Radin 1996;
Thomson and Perry 2006); and socioeconomic and cultural health and diversity (e.g.,
Sabatier et al. 2005).
IV. IMPLICATIONS FOR ASSESSMENT TOOL DESIGN
There does not seem to be any one work that is widely-recognized as the definitive
reference on the components of collaborative capacity in the water resources planning
and management arena. However, there is an abundance of literature that sheds light
on such an inventory.
In the words of Hocevar, Thomas, and Jansen (2006), “Building collaborative capacity
is a multi-faceted endeavor requiring systematic attention, resources, commitment, and
opportunities for interaction.” Because collaborative capacity is a multi-layered
phenomenon, research from very diverse sectors have direct bearing on the design of a
collaborative capacity assessment instrument for USACE. This situation (a large
quantity of pertinent literature, but no one definitive source) presents three challenges
for the design of the USACE instrument:
1.
Containing the literature review so that we can meet the practical deadlines and
needs emanating from the USACE staff in the field, albeit in a scientifically grounded
manner;
2.
Distilling the multitude of inputs into the most salient aspects of collaborative
capacity to inventory within the USACE’s water resources planning and management
personnel;
50
3.
“Rolling up” the multitude of inputs into a manageable number of variables,
given informal advice from federal agency evaluators to keep the list of questions as
short as possible to maximize response rate;
We see two alternatives for how we might move on from that point to develop the
USACE / IWR assessment tool. We could either:
1. Complete a new and original assessment tool focused specifically on the water
resources planning and management arena, based on the final SRA literature
review, guidance from IWR, and discussions with the Review Group for this
Collaborative Capacity Development initiative; or
2. Work in partnership with an existing science-based research initiative in the
emergency preparedness arena that seems to be very closely aligned with the
goals of the USACE / IWR Collaborative Capacity Development Initiative, in
order to use what appears to be an existing, already-validated instrument for
assessing inter- organizational collaborative capacity. We refer to the work of
Hocevar, Thomas, and Jansen (2006), through the Naval Postgraduate School
(School of Business and Policy). We believe that it is worth learning more
about this initiative in coming weeks to assess the wisdom of these two
alternative pathways.
These challenges and choices make the feedback of IWR and its Collaborative
Capacity Development Initiative Review Group extremely important to “ground truth”
the components of collaborative capacity that are most important to the Corps’
effectiveness in planning and managing the country’s increasingly precious water
resources. Once we reach closure on the components of collaborative capacity to focus
on in this assessment, SRA can conduct a brief follow-up analysis of the metrics used
by others to measure those specific capacities. This analysis will inform our next steps
in finalizing the survey instrument for use in the IWR Collaborative Capacity
Development Initiative.
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).
Beyerlein, Michael, Sue Freedman, Craig McGee, and Linda Moran. 2003. The Ten
Principles of Collaborative Organizations. Journal of Organizational Excellence 22
(2).
Capacity Development White Paper (draft), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008.
Constantino, Cathy, and Christina Sickles Merchant. 1996. Designing Conflict
Management Systems: A Guide to Crating Productive and Healthy Organizations. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Creighton & Creighton, Inc. Undated. When Partnering Doesn't Work (Well): An
Analysis of Less Successful Partnering Cases: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Creighton, James. 2008. Institutional Barriers to Implementation of Collaborative
51
Planning: Submitted to the Institute for Water Resources, US Army Corps of
Engineers.
Department of the Army Corps of Engineers (Civil Works) Strategic Plan: Fiscal Year
2004 - Fiscal Year 2009. 2004. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Department of the Army Corps of Engineers. Undated. 'Campaign Plan of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and Implementation Guidance." Working Draft; PreDecisional, version 22 with goal 1 and 4 changes. POC: Marc Kodack. For internal
USACE use only.
Diamond, Louise, and John McDonald. 1996. Multi-Track Diplomacy: A Systems
Approach to Peace. West Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
Eco-logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects. 2006.
Washington, DC: Federal Highway Administration.
Ferreyra, Cecilia, and Phil Beard. 2007. Participatory evaluation of collaborative and
integrated water management: Insights from the field Journal of Environmental
Planning and Management 50 (2).
Foster-Fishman, Pennie G., Shelby L. Berkowitz, David W. Lounsbury, Stephanie
Jacobson, and Nicole A. Allen. 2001. Building Collaborative Capacity in Community
Coalitions: A Review and Integrative Framework. American Journal of Community
Psychology 29 (2).
Galbraith, J.R., 2002. Designing Organizations: An Executive Briefing on Strategy,
Structure and Process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
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.
Goodman, Robert M., Marjorie A. Speers, Kenneth Mcleroy, Stephen Fawcett,
Michelle Kegler, Edith Parker, Steven Rathgeb Smith, Terrie D. Sterling, and Nina
Wallerstein. 1998. Identifying and Defining the Dimensions of Community Capacity
to Provide a Basis for Measurement Health Education & Behavior 25 (3).
Hansen, M.T. and N. Nohria, 2004. How To Build Collaborative Advantage. In C.
Huxham (Ed.), Creating Collaborative Advantage (pp. 1-18). London: Sage.
Hocevar, Susan Page, Gail Fann Thomas, and Erik Jansen. 2006. "Building
Collaborative Capacity: 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/S15720977(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.
52
Innes, Judith, Sarah Connick, and David Booher. 2007. Informality as a Planning
Strategy. Journal of the American Planning Association 73 (2).
Interagency Initiative to Foster Collaborative Problem Solving and Environmental
Conflict Resolution, Briefing Report for Federal Department Leadership. 2004
(revised 2005). U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, Morris K. Udall
Foundation.
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.
Making Community Coalitions Work. 1993. Harwood Group, Pew Partnership for
Civic Change.
Mattessich, Paul, Barbara Monsey, and Marta Murray-Close. 2001. Collaboration:
What Makes it Work. A Review of Research Literature on Factors Influencing
Successful Collaboration. 2nd ed: Wilder Research Center.
Natural Resource Management: Opportunities Exist to Enhance Federal Participation
in Collaborative Efforts to Reduce Conflicts and Improve Natural Resource Condition.
2008. Washington, DC: Government Accountability Office.
An Organizational Assessment of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in Regard to
Public Involvement Practices and Challenges. 1996. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), 2008. 2nd Annual Report
(2007) on Environmental Conflict Resolution. Point of Contact: Mr. Chip Smith,
Assistant for Environment, Tribal, and Regulatory Affairs.
Planning in a Collaborative Environment. 2005. Washington, DC: U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
President's Office of Management and Budget and President's Council on
Environmental Quality, 2005. "Memorandum on Environmental Conflict Resolution."
Response to memo on Executive Order 13352. 2006. Washington, DC: Department of
Defense.
Saving Bays and Estuaries: A Primer for Establishing and Managing Estuary Projects.
1989. Washington, DC: Environmental Protection Agency.
Scholz, John, and Bruce Stiftel, eds. 2005. Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict:
New Institutions for Collaborative Planning. Washington, DC: Resources for the
Future.
Wood, Michael R., 2005. Standards of Excellence in Civic Engagement: How Public
Agencies Can Learn from the Community, Use What They Learn, and Demonstrate
that Public Knowledge Matters. The Harwood Institute for Public Innovation:
Bethesda, MD.
53
Appendix 1[8]
Knowledge Skills and Abilities Supporting Collaborative Capacity
INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY
Partnering (Development of networks and alliances[9])
RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND AB
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 mean
particular context
· Identifies each participant’s contribution
Establishes a tracking and reporting system t
progress
Participates in external assessments and selfcapacity
KSAs related to Structuring Partnerships
Access to networks and connections
Cultivates familiarity with the capabilities and
requirements of other participants in the collaborativ
Builds effective coalition infrastructure, conne
existing community institutions, and inter-organizatio
leadership
Identifies interests and capable representative
Clarifies boundaries of participating organizat
INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY
Partnering (continued)
RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND A
Attitudes and Values
Maintains a diversity of stakeholders and i
different perspectives and feed the tension th
creativity, draw on a host of concepts when
approaches are needed
Sees diversity as positive
Adheres to principles, including:
·
accountability
·
openness
·
informed commitment
54
Influencing/negotiating
INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY
Interpersonal skills[10]
·
balanced, voluntary representatio
·
group autonomy
·
informed process
Integrates different types of knowledge
Recognizes and taps the different skills of
collaborations’ members
Builds inclusive, broad-based involvemen
collaborative efforts
Trustworthy and able to trust
Committed to collaborative initiative
Self-motivated and persevering
Tests “what ifs”
Understands and incorporates needs
constraints of specific groups (tribes, popula
low/limited English proficiency)
Serves as bridge between the group a
respective organizations
Persuades others
Builds consensus through give and ta
Gains cooperation from others to ob
information and accomplish goals.
RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND AB
Models open communication
Manages interactions between the partie
Expresses empathy
Alleviates stress
Develops positive working climate
Socializes new participants to norms, va
routines of collaborative processes
Works effectively with those from back
other than yours
Understands how prejudices (of self and
influence the development of understanding
Improves understanding between cultur
economic group
Treats others with courtesy, sensitivity,
Considers and responds appropriately t
and feelings of different people in different situ
55
Creativity and innovation
Employs conflict as an engine of creativ
Encourages efforts to develop new opti
resolution
Engages in technology transfer to share
Develops new insights into situations
Questions conventional approaches
Encourages new ideas and innovations
Designs and implement new or cuttingprograms/processes
RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND AB
INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY
External/political awareness[11]
Understands and keeps up-to-date on l
national, and international policies and trends
the organization and shape stakeholders’ views
Aware of the organization’s impact on
environment.
Understands power dynamics, and reco
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 co
Secures political support/commitment
Taps the capacities of the community
Uses guest speaker series, public meetin
research to communicate scientific information
stakeholders
Considers constraints of the Federal Ad
Committee Act
Engages in creative efforts to attract an
political support
Performs forward and backward mappi
identify potential constraints on joint action an
possible supportive coalitions or sources of po
conflict that would impede collaboration
Promotes consistent levels of knowledg
environmental conflict resolution by senior lea
56
project managers to foster strong situation awa
the implications of emerging conflicts and the
that signal the need for environmental conflict
INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY
RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND AB
Entrepreneurship
Creates and builds effective programs
Engages in creative efforts to attract an
financial support
Has knowledge of financial resources,
opportunities and mechanisms
Positions the organization for future su
identifying new opportunities
Builds the organization by developing
products or services
Takes calculated risks to accomplish or
objectives
Problem solving
Functions as a peer problem solver
Manages rate of change and problem s
regulate disequilibrium, discomfort, impatienc
conflict
Recognizes the value in integrating find
achieve a more accurate and useful picture of
Identifies and analyzes problems
Weighs relevance and accuracy of infor
Generate and evaluates alternative solu
makes recommendations
Conflict management
Able to accurately assess conflict situat
determine most effective approach for address
Aware of broad range of possible conf
resolution approaches to draw upon
Able to match appropriate conflict reso
approach to specific conflict
Able to work with others to design effe
consensus-building process
Understands how to build consensus a
multiple parties
Runs meetings effectively & efficiently
57
INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS
AND ABILITIES
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
58
Project management*
INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY
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
RELATED KNOWLEDGE, S
AND ABILITIES
Leadership*
Inspires political and
commitment and action
Works to sustain hop
encourage participation in th
consensus building process
Creates a sense of ow
of the problem and undersco
importance of work
Encourages participa
play active and engaged roles
shaping public action
Sets a holistic strategy
Encourages full partic
by senior-level executives
Creates a more inclus
culture that allows for more
communication
Reconciles competing
statutory objectives
Substantive knowledge*
Knowledge of the wa
resource issues under discuss
(empirical or experiential)
Knowledge of legal a
regulatory parameters and co
59
related to issues under discus
Understanding of ins
context in which participants
operating (e.g., how a particu
agency works)
Understanding of pol
making processes related to
under discussion
Other relevant types
expertise (e.g. modeling, eng
hydrology, ecology, aquatic b
INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY
RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS AND AB
Cultural Competency (this category added by authors)
Understands the cultural biases in the c
processes in use
Develops new processes to reflect the d
cultures of those involved
Tailors methods and approaches to par
norms
Recognizes different ways of knowing,
and behaving
Engages in constant monitoring and ad
throughout the course of the process to ensur
individuals of all backgrounds can equally part
Recognizes the cultural assumptions im
aspects of collaboration (setting, process, parti
mindset, role of tradition, form of resolution)
Recognizes when ideas from “other” c
being ignored, dismissed or disparaged
Welcomes all modes of inquiry and ana
Ensures that all types of information ar
to everyone involved in a collaboration
Helps build mutually framed questions
stakeholders
Engages in respectful questioning
Recognizes and responds to specific m
communication by Native American tribes
Engages populations with low or limite
proficiency
60
61