UNCG Collaborative Capacity Work Group
WORKING DRAFT
BUILDING COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY
A GUIDANCE DOCUMENT
January 25, 2012
NOTE: This is an initial rough working draft organized around the 6 assignment areas (IN CAPS)
discussed at the initial September 15 initial meeting of the Work Group. A guidance document draft outline
will be developed in advance of the April 2012 WG conference call.
“Collaboration is becoming the 21st century’s governance tool of choice and necessity.”
-UNCG Guide to Collaborative
Competencies
CCWG Wikispace: http://uncgcollaborativecapacity.wikispaces.com/
I. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 2
A. Work Group Charge ....................................................................................... 2
B. Guidance Document Format......................................................................... 2
C. Definitions...................................................................................................... 3
D. Benefits of Developing Collaborative Capacity ............................................ 5
II. THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR THE COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY ........... 5
References ........................................................................................................ 9
Appendix- KSAs for Collaborative Capacity ................................................. 11
III. COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY INITIATIVES ....................................................... 19
IV. COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY LITERATURE REVIEW ........................................ 27
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
1
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Workgroup Charge
Building on a session at the June, 2011 UNCG meeting in Portland, OR, a small group of
UNCG members agreed to explore whether and then how to usefully expand upon the
UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies report to provide collaborative capacity
guidance for those working within organizations in collaborative governance settings.
This should be explored in the context of the evolving understanding of collaborative
governance,1 the UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies,2 and recent efforts in
implementing collaborative capacity assessments3
Initial Draft Study Questions to refine and explore include:
1. Definitional: What collaborative capacity? What is the relationship between
collaborative governance and collaborative capacity? What is the relationship
between collaborative competencies and collaborative capacity?
2. What are the benefits of developing collaborative capacities within agencies and
organizations and among agencies and organizations involved in collaboration?
3. What are the benefits to UNCG members of developing tools and skills to provide
collaborative organizational and agency assessments that can measure capacity and
facilitate processes and training to help build collaborative capacity?
4. What is the best way to conceptualize the organizational components of
collaborative capacity? Do we utilize the same component organization as the Guide
to Collaborative Competencies? What are other ways collaborative capacity has been
conceptualized? E.g. The SRA work with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
recommended the following elements: Political leadership/authority and
empowerment to use collaboration where appropriate; Knowledge, skills, and
“The (collaborative governance) framework specifies a set of nested dimensions that encompass a larger
system context, a collaborative governance regime, and its internal collaborative dynamics and actions that
can generate impacts and adaptations across the systems. The framework provides a broad conceptual map
for situating and exploring components of cross-boundary governance systems that range from policy or
program-based intergovernmental cooperation to place-based regional collaboration with 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 cross- boundary collaboration.” An Integrative Framework for
Collaborative Governance, by Kirk Emerson, Tina Nabatchi, Steve Balogh, Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, First published online May 2,
2011 http://jpart.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/05/02/jopart.mur011.abstract
1
See, http://www.policyconsensus.org/uncg/collaborativecompetencies.html
See, The State of Collaboration in the Corps: A Field Perspective, Appendix B “Literature Review
on Components of Collaborative Capacity in the Water Resources, Planning and Management Area,
SRA, 2008
2
3
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
2
abilities; Time and resources; Institutional procedures that reward use of these
strategies; and Organizational culture.
5. What are the range of collaborative capacity building strategies we should consider
that target the organizational components of collaborative capacity?
6. What do we know about and what guidance can we offer about which work best
under various circumstances?
B. Guidance Document Format
A guidance document draft outline will be developed in advance of the April 2012 WG conference call.
January 20, 2012 WG Comments on Format and Scope
The group reviewed again the possible boundaries for the effort and agreed that the Workgroup
should seek to approach this effort focusing on practical guidance to public/private/NGO
organizations and managers on developing collaborative capacity within their organizations. This
should be viewed with an understanding that these become important for organizations due to
drivers (partners, stakeholders) that are external to the organization. The Working Group agreed to
keep an open mind as to both the internal and external conditions and opportunities and drivers to
develop collaborative capacity within an organization or agency.
The Work Group agreed that the Guidance document should have a range of possible strategies,
approaches and examples for addressing each of the collaborative capacity components. “The guide
we are cooking up should include a range of strategies that an agency might choose to use in
developing collaborative capacity in a more systematic way, i.e. one size doesn’t fit all.” They also
suggested that there should be tools and guidance on both how to conduct collaborative capacity
assessments and how to establish and implement evaluation and measurement of the efforts.
We should seek to consider different organizational circumstances and contexts. In the November
meeting the group suggested strategies might be framed in terms of challenges, impediments and
opportunities for each of the components of the conceptual framework. The development of a
literature review on developing collaborative capacity plus those drawn from professional experience
and examples should inform these tested strategies. The NEPA Collaboration Handbook (posted on
the wiki site) http://www.ecr.gov/pdf/Collaboration_in_NEPA_Oct_2007.pdf, might offer an
approach to framing guidance on strategies. On the November conference call, the participants also
discussed the importance of including examples of challenges and strategies throughout the guide (as
part of the body or as sidebars).
In terms of a format for guidance, Shari Shaftlein FHA/USDOT suggested we look at the
online organization of Transportation for Communities - Advancing Projects through Partnerships
(TCAPP) http://www.transportationforcommunities.com/ TCAPP is a decision support
tool, built from the experiences of transportation partners and stakeholders, which provides
how-to information when it is most needed to improve how transportation planners and
decision makers develop, prioritize, and inform transportation plans and projects. “This
represents the Transportation sector's effort to mainstream collaboration in all Planning and
Project Development Decisions and incorporate several years and millions of dollars of
research products produced via SHRPII
http://www.trb.org/StrategicHighwayResearchProgram2SHRP2/Blank2.aspx with a focus
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
3
on capacity (in Transportation terms - new roads).”
C. Definitions
1. DEFINITIONAL: WHAT COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY? WHAT IS THE
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE AND
COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY? WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
COLLABORATIVE COMPETENCIES AND COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY?
What is collaborative capacity?
Collaborative capacity is the ability of organizations to enter into, develop, and sustain
intra and inter-organizational systems in pursuit of collective and shared outcomes and
goals.4
What is the relationship between collaborative governance and collaborative
capacity?
Over the last two decades, a new strategy termed ‘‘collaborative governance’’ has developed.
Collaborative governance takes as its starting point the idea that working together creates
more lasting, effective solutions. "Governance" is the process by which public ends and
means are identified, agreed upon, and pursued. This is different than "government," which
relates to the specific jurisdiction in which authority is exercised. "Governance" is a broader
term and encompasses both formal and informal systems of relationships and networks for
decision-making and problem solving.5
This mode of governance focuses on public issues and brings multiple stakeholders from
different sectors together in common forum to engage in consensus-oriented solution
seeking, problem solving and decision-making:
“Collaborative governance is therefore a type of governance in which public and
private actors work collectively in distinctive ways, using particular processes, to
establish laws and rules for the provision of public goods… It is a governing
arrangement where one or more public agencies directly engage non-state
stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensusoriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or
manage public programs or assets.”6
It has been described as a concept that addresses the process of establishing, steering,
facilitating, operating, and monitoring cross-sector organizational arrangements to
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 in the work of a number of academics
and practitioners (e.g., Bardach, 1998; Huxham, 1996; Mowery, Oxley & Silverman, 1996; Seidman,
1970).
4
5
6
Ansell and Gash JPART 18:543–571 2008
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
4
address public policy problems that cannot be easily addressed by a single organization
or the public sector alone. These arrangements are often characterized by “joint efforts
with reciprocal expectations and voluntary participation among formally autonomous
entities, from two or more sectors —public, for profit, and nonprofits —in order to
leverage (build on) the unique attributes and resources of each.”7
What is the relationship between collaborative competencies and collaborative
capacity?
Collaborative competencies focus on the individual’s capacity for and mastery of
effective collaboration. Collaborative capacity focuses on the organization’s network
for support of collaborative efforts both within and beyond the organization. The
UNCG Guide to Collaborative Competencies was focused on guiding public managers
interested in improving their staff’s collaborative competence through continuing
education and training. A guide focusing on collaborative capacity would offer
managers and leaders guidance on how to address and facilitate political
leadership/authority and empowerment to use collaboration where appropriate,
investments of time and resources, the development of institutional procedures that
reward use of collaborative strategies and review and changes regarding organizational
culture and collaboration.
D. Benefits of Developing Collaborative Capacity
2. WHAT ARE THE BENEFITS OF DEVELOPING COLLABORATIVE CAPACITIES
WITHIN AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS AND AMONG AGENCIES AND
ORGANIZATIONS INVOLVED IN COLLABORATION?
The benefits of developing collaborative capabilities within agencies and organizations
include: cost savings through the transfer of smart practices, better decision making as a
result of advice and information obtained from colleagues, enhanced capacity for collective
action by dispersed units, and innovation through the cross-pollination of ideas and
recombination of scarce resources. (Need citations for these benefits)
II. THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK FOR COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY
DEVELOPMENT GUIDE
3. WHAT IS THE BEST WAY TO CONCEPTUALIZE THE ORGANIZATIONAL
COMPONENTS OF COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY?
#5 WHAT ARE THE RANGE OF COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY BUILDING
STRATEGIES WE SHOULD CONSIDER THAT TARGET THE
ORGANIZATIONAL COMPONENTS OF COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY?
7
Daniel Mazmanian & Shui-Yan Tang, USC
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
5
#6 WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT AND WHAT GUIDANCE CAN WE OFFER
ABOUT WHICH WORK BEST UNDER VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES?
In 2008, as part of a project focusing on helping the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) assess its capacity to use collaborative strategies in carrying out its mission in the
water resources planning and management arena, DuPraw undertook a literature review to
identify the components of collaborative capacity from an organizational and “systems”
point of view. DuPraw and the USACE team defined “collaborative capacity” as “the ability
of organizations to enter into, develop, and sustain interorganizational systems in pursuit of
collective outcomes”; fostering collaborative capacity requires “systematic attention,
resources, commitment, and opportunities for interaction” (Hocevar, Thomas and Jansen,
2006). “Building collaborative capacity,” say Hocevar and colleagues, An organization that
has a robust collaborative capacity is able to “learn, experiment, and adapt creatively to
threats and opportunities” (Innes and Booher, 2003).
The team defined “system” as a “set of interrelated components, acting with a common
purpose, that exchanges information and energy with its environment”; further: (1) systems
are comprised of subsystems; (2) system activities can transform the system into another
state; (3) systems have self-regulatory and adaptive mechanisms; and (4) systems smust
function within a particular context (Diamond and McDonald 1996). In large, non-linear
systems, changes to one subsystem can radically alter the way in which the whole system
functions (Anderson 1999). Each component of a system (such as a branch of a federal
agency) may have its own unique role and culture, but each depends on the effective
functioning of the other system components for the overall success of the organization
(Costantino and Merchant 1996).
DuPraw’s findings, published in the 2011 in the USACE report, The State of Collaboration
in the Corps: A Field Perspective,” suggested that there are five inter-dependent
components to such a system: (1) Political Leadership, Authority, and Empowerment; (2)
Individual Knowledge, Skills and Abilities; (3) Time and Resources; (4) Institutional
Procedures; and (5) Organizational Culture. Each of these is briefly defined below; a more
detailed discussion can be found in the 2011 USACE report mentioned above.

Political leadership, authority and empowerment -- The authority to encourage
collaboration, reprogram budgets to support it, and to implement resulting decisions,
including monitoring and evaluation (Jones 2005). Political support is needed for 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 the explain collaboration and its benefits, and
encourage ongoing learning about how to do it well (Foster-Fishman et al.). Those
initiating collaborative projects must, among other things, have interpersonal networks
they can tap at all levels of their organizations, and all participants the authority and
accountability to negotiate and make decisions on behalf of their respective
organizations (Hocevar, Thomas, and Jansen (2006).
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
6

Knowledge, skills, and abilities – The USACE team used the knowledge, skills and
abilities (KSAs) shown in Appendix 1. It is a compilation of KSAs used by the
Departments of Defense, Interior and Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection
Agency, as well as several additional KSAs derived from DuPraw’s literature review.

Time and Resources – In the environmental / public policy realm, collaborative
projects are frequently multi-year initiatives, entailing many meetings and much in-house;
related time-consuming activities can include budgeting, research, implementation,
monitoring and evaluation (Koontz et al. 2004). Having a source of dedicated resources
contributes to success (Hocevar, Thomas, and Jansen, 2006). Resources are not limited
to funding, but include human and technical resources (Koontz et al., 2004).

Institutional Procedures – official ways of carrying out the organization’s operations,
including developing leadership commitment, establishing policies, rules, norms and
practices; and obtaining resources and cooperation (Imperial 2005). Most organizations
also have institutional procedures pertaining to communication with various audiences
and methods of fostering external awareness (e.g., interactions with
politicians, public agencies at various levels of governance, and branch offices).

Organizational Culture – Organizational culture reflects a shared worldview, ideas of
what is right and wrong, priorities and values (Goldberg 2008). Thus, it has a profound
impact on the way its personnel engage in collaborative endeavors. The following
organizational attributes may contribute to an organization’s collaborative capacity
include adaptability (Making Community Coalitions Work 1993) and resiliency (Innes
and Booher 2003). Those that may undermine collaborative capacity include:
o Minimization of collaborative activities; risk aversion and lack of trust among
participating agencies (How to Engage Low-Literacy and Limited-EnglishProficiency Populations in Transportation Decision making, 2006);
o Belief that regulations are inflexible; reputation for being unreliable or untrustworthy;
conflicts in missions of internal divisions; difficulty managing expectations of other
key players (Creighton 2008); and
o Long-held, highly entrenched and polarized positions; resistance to change; lack of a
visible champion for collaboration; and turf issues (Imperial 2005).
In the winter of 2010/2011, DuPraw began working with the US Forest Service (USFS),
helping the agency develop systematic methods of fostering its collaborative capacity. USFS
is recognizing the vital importance of collaborative capacity in effectively implementing
numerous agency-wide strategic initiatives. Its new planning rule is a key driver, as
implementation of the rule requires expanded use of collaboration; however, the agency
recognizes that collaborative competency will also serve its efforts to respond to climate
change, to integrate its resource inventory, monitoring, and assessment functions into a
cohesive system, and many more efforts. The USFS reviewed the framework for
collaborative capacity developed by the USACE team, and adapted it for its own use; they
conceptualized their “system” for enabling collaborative capacity as having five components
also, but a slightly different list, as follows: (1) Leadership; (2) Institutional Culture; (3)
Relationships; (4) Policies and Practices for Implementing Them; and (5) Learning.
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
7
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.
Figure 1
Generalized System for Encouraging, Enabling, and Rewarding Personnel’s Capacity to Collaborate with External
Parties to Achieve Shared Goals
Time &
Resources
Individual
Skill Sets
Institutional
Procedures
Relationships
Political
Leadership,
Authority &
Empowerment
Organizational
Culture
January 20, 2012 WG Comments on Conceptual Framework
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
8
The participants discussed what was intended by the “relationship” component and agreed to retitle
this “networks and relationships” to reflect the importance of networks, connections and
relationships in effective collaborative work and establishing capacity. In the Forest Service this was
helpful in addressing the challenge of periodic leadership and management transitions.
The participants agreed going forward there needs to be:






Further clarification of the relationships and distinctions between and among the various
components. For example how do networks and relationships factor into political leadership,
authority and empowerment? Or how do “networking and relationships” connect with
institutional procedures (related to staff turnover, overlaps and cross training).
Ideally, each component should be capable of formulating guidance on meeting challenges with
tested strategies that can be illustrated with examples.
In order to build collaborative capacity in an organization, is it necessary to focus on all or each
of the 6 components and/or is there a sequence of steps/components for an agency or
organization to consider in addressing and building capacity?
Guidance might be provided on how to assess the strengths and weaknesses of an organizations
networks and relationships.
Collaborative capacity in terms of networks and relationships may be something to draw upon
even after you transition to another organization or another part of the organization.
Consider how organizational learning fits in the concept of collaborative capacity. It was
suggested it might fit within each component. Bill Logue offered to circulate a recent Stanford
study on the topic
http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/the_challenge_of_organizational_learning
REFERENCES
Anderson, Philip. 1999. Complexity Theory and Organization Science. Organization Science 10 (3).
Bean, Martha, Larry Fisher, and Mike Eng. 2007. Assessment in Environmental and Public Policy Conflict
Resolution: Emerging Theory, Patterns of Practice, and a Conceptual Framework. Conflict Resolution Quarterly
24 (4).
Constantino, Cathy, and Christina Sickles Merchant. 1996. Designing Conflict Management Systems: A Guide to
Crating Productive and Healthy Organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Creighton, James. 2008. Institutional Barriers to Implementation of Collaborative Planning: Submitted to the
Institute for Water Resources, US Army Corps of Engineers.
Diamond, Louise, and John McDonald. 1996. Multi-Track Diplomacy: A Systems Approach to Peace. West
Hartford, CT: Kumarian Press.
Foster-Fishman, Pennie G., Shelby L. Berkowitz, David W. Lounsbury, Stephanie Jacobson, and Nicole A.
Allen. 2001. Building Collaborative Capacity in Community 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, 255-274. Elsevier Ltd. ISSN: 15720977/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.
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
9
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).
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
10
Appendix 18
Knowledge Skills and Abilities Supporting Collaborative Capacity
INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY
PARTNERING (Development of networks
and alliances9)
RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS
AND ABILITIES
Process-related KSAs
- Uses democratic decision-making style
- Gather information effectively
- Promotes power sharing
- Develops shared vision among
participants
 Helps participants agree on what
partnering means in particular
context
 Identifies each participant’s
contribution
- Establishes a tracking and reporting
system to document progress
- Participates in external assessments and
self-assesses capacity
KSAs related to Structuring Partnerships
- Access to networks and connections
- Cultivates familiarity with the capabilities
and requirements of other participants in
the collaborative
- Builds effective coalition infrastructure,
connections to existing community
institutions, and inter-organizational
leadership
- Identifies interests and capable
representatives
- Clarifies boundaries of participating
organizations
8
9
Sources: numerous
Definitions from OPM. Posted at https://www.opm.gov/ses/recruitment/ecq.asp
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
11
INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY
PARTNERING (continued)
INFLUENCING/NEGOTIATING
RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS
AND ABILITIES
Attitudes and Values
- Maintains a diversity of stakeholders
and ideas to bring different perspectives
and feed the tension that supports
creativity, draw on a host of concepts
when new approaches are needed
- Sees diversity as positive
- Adheres to principles, including:
 accountability
 openness
 informed commitment
 balanced, voluntary representation
 group autonomy
 informed process
- Integrates different types of knowledge
- Recognizes and taps the different skills
of collaborations’ members
- Builds inclusive, broad-based
involvement in collaborative efforts
- Trustworthy and able to trust
- Committed to collaborative initiative
- Self-motivated and persevering
-
-
Tests “what ifs”
Understands and incorporates needs
and constraints of specific groups
(tribes, populations with low/limited
English proficiency)
Serves as bridge between the group and
their respective organizations
Persuades others
Builds consensus through give and take
Gains cooperation from others to
obtain information and accomplish
goals.
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
12
INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY
INTERPERSONAL SKILLS10
RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS
AND ABILITIES
-
-
-
CREATIVITY AND INNOVATION
-
Models open communication
Manages interactions between the
parties
Expresses empathy
Alleviates stress
Develops positive working climate
Socializes new participants to norms,
values and routines of collaborative
processes
Works effectively with those from
backgrounds other than yours
Understands how prejudices (of self and
others) influence the development of
understanding
Improves understanding between
cultures and economic group
Treats others with courtesy, sensitivity,
and respect
Considers and responds appropriately to
the needs and feelings of different
people in different situations
Employs conflict as an engine of
creativity
Encourages efforts to develop new
options for resolution
Engages in technology transfer to share
strengths
Develops new insights into situations
Questions conventional approaches
Encourages new ideas and innovations
Designs and implement new or cuttingedge programs/processes
“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
10
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
13
INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY
EXTERNAL/POLITICAL AWARENESS11
RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS
AND ABILITIES
-
-
-
-
-
11
Understands and keeps up-to-date on
local, national, and international policies
and trends that affect the organization
and shape stakeholders’ views
Aware of the organization’s impact on
the external environment.
Understands power dynamics, and
recognizes many different forms of
power
Recognizes when a project is in trouble
Engages in risk analysis
Engages in strategic thinking
Manages political expectations
Assesses the timing and scope of the
collaboration
Secures political support/commitment
Taps the capacities of the community
Uses guest speaker series, public
meetings, and research to communicate
scientific information to other
stakeholders
Considers constraints of the Federal
Advisory Committee Act
Engages in creative efforts to attract and
secure political support
Performs forward and backward
mapping to identify potential
constraints on joint action and identify
possible supportive coalitions or sources
of political conflict that would impede
collaboration
Promotes consistent levels of
knowledge of environmental conflict
resolution by senior leaders and project
managers to foster strong situation
awareness of the implications of
emerging conflicts and the conditions
that signal the need for environmental
conflict resolution
Authors added “political” to category heading to provide further clarification.
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
14
INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY
ENTREPRENEURSHIP
RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS
AND ABILITIES
-
-
PROBLEM SOLVING
-
-
-
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT
-
-
-
Creates and builds effective programs
Engages in creative efforts to attract
and secure financial support
Has knowledge of financial resources,
funding opportunities and mechanisms
Positions the organization for future
success by identifying new
opportunities
Builds the organization by developing
or improving products or services
Takes calculated risks to accomplish
organizational objectives
Functions as a peer problem solver
Manages rate of change and problem
solving – regulate disequilibrium,
discomfort, impatience and conflict
Recognizes the value in integrating
findings to achieve a more accurate and
useful picture of the situation
Identifies and analyzes problems
Weighs relevance and accuracy of
information
Generate and evaluates alternative
solutions, and makes recommendations
Able to accurately assess conflict
situation and determine most effective
approach for addressing it
Aware of broad range of possible
conflict resolution approaches to draw
upon
Able to match appropriate conflict
resolution approach to specific conflict
Able to work with others to design
effective consensus-building process
Understands how to build consensus
among multiple parties
Runs meetings effectively & efficiently
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
15
INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY
CONFLICT MANAGEMENT (continued)
RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS
AND ABILITIES
-
-
PROJECT MANAGEMENT*
-
-
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
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
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
16
INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY
LEADERSHIP*
RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS
AND ABILITIES
-
-
-
-
-
SUBSTANTIVE KNOWLEDGE*
-
-
-
-
-
Inspires political and personal
commitment and action
Works to sustain hope and encourage
participation in the consensus building
process
Creates a sense of ownership of the
problem and underscore importance of
work
Encourages participants to play active
and engaged roles in shaping public
action
Sets a holistic strategy
Encourages full participation by seniorlevel executives
Creates a more inclusive culture that
allows for more effective
communication
Reconciles competing statutory
objectives
Knowledge of the water resource issues
under discussion (empirical or
experiential)
Knowledge of legal and regulatory
parameters and constraints related to
issues under discussion
Understanding of institutional context in
which participants are operating (e.g.,
how a particular agency works)
Understanding of policy making
processes related to issues under
discussion
Other relevant types of expertise (e.g.
modeling, engineering, hydrology,
ecology, aquatic biology)
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
17
INDIVIDUAL COMPETENCY
CULTURAL COMPETENCY (this category added
by authors)
RELATED KNOWLEDGE, SKILLS
AND ABILITIES
-
-
-
-
-
-
Understands the cultural biases in the
collaborative processes in use
Develops new processes to reflect the
diverse cultures of those involved
Tailors methods and approaches to
parties’ cultural norms
Recognizes different ways of knowing,
perceiving and behaving
Engages in constant monitoring and
adjustment throughout the course of the
process to ensure that individuals of all
backgrounds can equally participate
Recognizes the cultural assumptions
implicit in all aspects of collaboration
(setting, process, participation, mindset,
role of tradition, form of resolution)
Recognizes when ideas from “other”
cultures are being ignored, dismissed or
disparaged
Welcomes all modes of inquiry and
analysis
Ensures that all types of information are
available to everyone involved in a
collaboration
Helps build mutually framed questions
with other stakeholders
Engages in respectful questioning
Recognizes and responds to specific
modes of communication by Native
American tribes
Engages populations with low or limited
English proficiency
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
18
III. COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY INITIATIVES
January 20, 2012 WG Comments on CC Initiatives
The WG reviewed and thanked the authors of the 5 examples of collaborative capacity efforts
captured to date. These are being developed for possible use as strategy examples in the text and
possibly as an appendix to the guidance document. Bob agreed to solicit more examples from the
UNCG centers. Maria agreed to see if there could be a write up of a ACOE/NOAA collaborative
leadership workshop in a coastal community. Shari presented the TCAPP effort (see #3 above) as a
potential collaborative capacity effort or to demonstrate some collaborative capacity strategies. Bob
agreed to share the template with Share, Ruth and Mary to see if they can describe it as an initiative.
List of Examples
1. COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY ASSESSMENT INITIATIVE, US ARMY
CORPS OF ENGINEERS (Maria and Marci)
2. US FOREST SERVICE “EMPOWERING COLLABORATIVE
STEWARDSHIP” PROJECT (Deb & Marci)
3. SIERRA CASCADES DIALOG GROUP (Deb)
4. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT CAPACITY BUILDING (BILL LOGUE)
5. ALBERTA COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (CHRIS
CARLSON)
1. US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY
ASSESSMENT INITIATIVE,
Lead UNCG Member or other Practitioner: Marci DuPraw & Maria Placht
Organization/Sector: (Public, Private, NGO, combination): Public – U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Brief Description of the Collaborative Capacity Context:
Given the current environment of diminishing resources, increasing complexity, shifting
priorities, and greater pressure to integrate across multiple disciplines, agencies, and
jurisdictions, the Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) deems collaboration as critically
important for achieving its mission in the 21st century. Solutions to today’s problems require
reaching out to those with different authorities, perspectives, and resources to solve the
various dimensions of these problems. In 2008, the Corps established a Conflict Resolution
and Public Participation Center of Expertise. The initial project of the Center was to
understand the capacity of the Corps in areas relating to collaboration, conflict resolution,
and public participation, so that Center staff would better grasp where the Corps’ strengths
and weaknesses lay and thus where they should focus their efforts. The information
collected during this baseline study gave the Center a starting point and a roadmap to guide
its early initiatives.
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
19
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’ Conflictresolution & Public-participation Center (CPC) with assistance from CPC field
representatives in each Corps Division and with support from SRA International, Inc.
(SRA).
The Initiative resulted in thirteen key recommendations, organized by what we determined
to be the five components of an organizational framework that would effectively support,
enable, and reward the use of collaboration(institutional procedures; leadership, authority,
and empowerment; individual skill sets; time and resources; and organizational culture)..
Using a systems approach to assess the Corps’ capacity to collaborate enabled the
identification of the holistic changes needed to move the Corps toward a culture of
collaboration.
Process Steps Summary:
The Collaborative Capacity Assessment Initiative was a two-year project that followed this
process:
1. Convene a diverse internal/external 13-person Review Group to ensure that the capacity
assessment initiative meets USACE needs;
2. Collect input from members of the Review Group regarding the goals and objectives of
this assessment, anticipated challenges to achieving success; existing assessment tools
and feedback to develop a USACE-specific tool; and proposed methods for analyzing
and documenting results;
3. Develop a capacity assessment tool/survey that will assist the Corps in assessing its
ability to conduct partnerships and to develop collaborative working relationships;
4. Use this tool to conduct a capacity assessment, which occurred via one-day, facilitated
workshops in each of the eight Corps Divisions. In advance of each workshop, Chiefs
and Deputy Chiefs from that Division completed the tool, as well as others identified as
having particular experience and expertise in collaboration. This assessment targets the
leaders of each Division because it is they who best exemplify the collaborative capacity
of the Corps. 230 Corps staff at the Division and District level completed the tool and
most of them participated in one of the eight workshops. During the workshops,
participants presented barriers and enablers to successful collaboration via a series of
case studies, discussed the survey results and implications, and recommended methods
that Corps staff and Corps Headquarters could use to improve collaborative capacity.
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
20
5. Periodically elicit input from the Review Group regarding the proposed agenda for the
Division workshops; the draft findings report; how this initiative is carried out, what is
working well, and where mid-course corrections might be needed; and “next steps” once
this assessment is complete.
6. Use the results of the survey and workshops to write a report identifying areas that need
the Corps’ attention. This report focused on steps the Corps can take to maintain
collaborative strengths and enhance those areas that they would like to develop further,
particularly for water resources planning and management.
Current Status:
In January, 2011, following the completion of the Initiative, CPC presented the 13
recommendations to Corps senior leaders in for their review and direction. Many of the
recommendations were identified as overlapping with/relating to CPC or other Corps
initiatives. CPC was directed to synch those recommendations with the leads for the other
initiatives. Seven of the 13 recommendations fall into this category and are currently being
implemented in part or in full. One recommendation has been implemented by CPC in full,
which is to “Ensure USACE personnel can readily access facilitators and mediators to assist
them with collaborative processes.” Four recommendations are not yet being implemented
as senior leaders decided that no new funds would be allocated to implement the
recommendations not related to current Corps efforts. One final recommendation will not
be implemented as Corps senior leaders decided it was not appropriate/relevant.
Outcomes/Achievements:
The outcomes of this Initiative are still unfolding. Achievements to-date:
1. Ensuring Corps personnel can readily access facilitators and mediators to assist them
with collaborative processes. This was achieved in part through a roster of internal
facilitators expanded during the workshop meetings by identifying existing Corps
facilitators.
2. Establishing a Collaboration and Public Participation Community of Practice. This
community serves to foster relationships, connect people doing similar work, raise
the profile of collaboration and public participation as critical to achieving the Corps’
mission, and share best practices and lessons learned.
3. Providing field perspectives and information to CPC regarding the state of
collaboration in the Corps and ideas for how CPC can improve this capacity. As a
baseline study, the information collected during this effort was invaluable in terms of
educating CPC staff of the needs of the field and highlighting areas important to
focus on in future work. The information collected during these two years continues
to inform and guide the direction of CPC every day, making their work more
relevant and useful to the Corps.
4. Providing data and input to training courses – to both inform current course content
and develop new courses, such as the basics of facilitation and collaborative
leadership.
5. Collecting several conflict resolution or public participation case studies from each
Corps Division as a starting place for developing a database to collect case studies
and document lessons learned and best practices that will be developed by/shared
with the Community of Practice and the broader Corps.
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
21
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 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
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
22
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.
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:
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
23





Bring together public and private land managers to grapple with an “all lands”
approach to planning and conservation, beginning with ecological restoration. In
this case, “all lands” refers to all land within the Sierra Nevada bioregion irrespective
of jurisdictional or ownership boundaries.
Lay the foundation for Science Synthesis, Assessments, and Forest Plan Revisions.
Develop stakeholder collaborative capacity to address challenging, complex issues on
a large, landscape scale.
Create shared responsibility and understanding.
Build relationships and trust among all stakeholders through interest-based problem
solving techniques.
Process Steps Summary:
The Sierra Cascades Dialogue is based on best practices in the fields of public participation12
and collaborative policy. A professional facilitator with advanced training in the field of
conflict analysis and resolution and an active mediation practice in natural resources
planning facilitates the sessions. The facilitator works with senior Forest Service policy staff,
including its social scientist, to design the sessions in cooperation with a twenty-member
steering committee that is representative of all stakeholder interests.
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.
12For
resources, see the International Association for Public Participation at
http://www.iap2.org/
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
24
The most recent dialogue (December, 2011) brought together members of the research
community and stakeholders to identify key questions to be addressed through a science
synthesis to support a Sierra Nevada bioregional assessment and forest plan revisions.
Agreements and understanding achieved through the Sierra Cascades Dialogue Group
inform Forest Service decisions. Outcomes are shared with the Regional Leadership Team
and other staff of the Forest Service (the Regional Leadership Team includes the Regional
Forester, Deputy Regional Foresters, key regional leaders, and the Forest Supervisors).
4. MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION PUBLIC
ENGAGEMENT CAPACITY BUILDING
(Status 1/18/2012)
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 redesign 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 decisionmaking. MOPC will also ensure compliance with best practices for collaborative governance
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
25
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
engagement.
2. Policy/protocol development including assessment criteria and best practices for
equitable and inclusive stakeholder engagement.
3. Internal implementation and design – orientation and training modules for roll
out, identification of pilot projects.
4. Capacity Building Implementation – create training program and internal training
team for Highway Division and agency-wide implementation.
5. Project Implementation – complete demonstration projects
Current Status:
Pilot collaborative process, Longfellow Bridge Task Force, successfully reach agreement on
recommendations for inclusion in Environmental Assessment.
Initiating system design/capacity building and identifying additional projects for
pilot/coaching MassDOT staff.
Outcomes/Achievements: (to date)
1) Thirty-two member Longfellow Bridge Task Force composed of stakeholders and chaired
by a community leader was convened by MassDOT. Met 9 times and arrived at
recommendations for configurations of space for multi-modal (vehicles, public rail transit,
pedestrian and cycling) use in renovation of the historic bridge connecting Boston and
Cambridge.
2)Grant and MassDOT funding received for system design. MOPC project team, two
technical advisors and external evaluator selected
Expected outcomes:
MassDOT Public Engagement Policy and Protocol, MassDOT implementation team and
capacity creation, several pilot projects.
5. ALBERTA COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE INITIATIVE (CHRIS
CARLSON)
(To be turned into a template example)
The Province of Alberta has a Ministry of Municipal Affairs. Municipal Dispute Resolution
Services is a program within that Department.
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
26
They have launched a Collaborative Governance Initiative (CGI) to improve municipal
business and inter-municipal relations. The program gives municipal leaders an opportunity
to look internally and inter- municipally at their organizations and find creative, locallyrelevant ways to improve communication, better engage with internal and external
stakeholders, and build better relationships. The program helps municipalities assess whether
collaborative governance is appropriate and help convene the process and ensure all the
prerequisites are in place. They also make grants available to municipalities to implement
their collaborative efforts.
PCI worked with the program and provided them with information to assist them in the
design and development of a training program on collaborative governance for municipal
officials. They provided a review of existing collaborative leadership training programs and
discussed possible objectives and curricular components for the training program. A pilot
program was then prepared and piloted.
IV.
COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY LITERATURE REVIEW
January 20, 2012 WG Comments on CC Literature Review
Tina Nabatchi, in advance of the January 20 call, agreed to work on and compile and circulate an
informal literature review building on and updating the 2008 literature review in the “State of
Collaboration in the Corps” ACOE.
http://uncgcollaborativecapacity.wikispaces.com/Collaborative+Capacity+Resource+Documents
Collaborative Capacity WG Draft Document- 1-25-12
27