Case Studies and Resources

1. Case studies

The following section contains various case studies that you can use for inspiration.

1.1. Cooperation Case Study (1): Building communication and information sharing pathways

Starting in the early 2000s an array of social and human services agencies/organisations and advocacy groups with a state-wide remit began to meet on an occasional basis to talk about some of the issues and concerns they shared in their work areas. Over time, members noted the limitations of this ad hoc arrangement and sought a more organised, less sporadic process of communication and information sharing. 

Encouraged and facilitated by a core group of enthusiastic members, the main participating groups eventually banded together to convene a general assembly at which a decision was made to adopt a loose structure in the form of an interagency meeting. The interagency meeting was subsequently convened, occurring monthly on a rotational basis, with members agreeing to share responsibility for organising, promoting and chairing the event. The purpose of this meeting was not to change the way that participating organisations delivered their own services, but rather to enhance information sharing across the members to help with their individual work programs.  One of the key foci of the group’s deliberations was the sharing of a sufficient level of information about their services and clients in order to create agreed processes and mechanisms as the basis of a viable referral pathway between the individual participating agencies.  In this way, the emphasis was on supporting each others’ work while retaining their existing models of service provision.

The interagency meetings were the ‘main stay’ for the network, offering regular opportunities for sharing information and experiences. However, for many members the loose format and the short meeting times limited their ability to discuss, debate and thus advance key issues.

A second major deliverable from the ongoing interactions of the interagency meetings was the formation of an annual conference at which members could raise and explore common service issues and share new practices and models of operation, as well as raise new areas of concern or advance issues beyond the smaller groups. The members wanted the meetings and the annual conference subsequently organised to:

“… provide a flow of useful information about complementary work issues, shape local and inform local decision makers … and to be a vehicle to link organisations and individuals within local geographical areas”.  

Individual members and some organisations could point to a number of important accomplishments achieved through the annual conference (which was later shifted to a biannual event) including: a resulting referral pathway, access to new and relevant information sources to help with their service delivery, and the promotion of previously less prominent client group needs. Over time funding for the conference diminished and with little to no provision in place to self-finance the event the high energy around the conference dissipated. Interagency meetings, which did not require as much effort, continued and eventually merged with other interagency meetings.

1.2. Coordination Case Study (1): Achieving policy coordination and effective and efficient service delivery

In this case a forum was formed as a result of a high-level mandate to establish a whole-of-government approach to human services.  Despite the rhetoric of ‘collaboration’ in the policy documents and language used the actual purpose and actions undertaken within the forum directly aligned with achieving better coordination of government policy and resources for more effective and efficient service delivery; that is, they sought to achieve more coherent polices, joined-up services and joint program outcomes.

The forum—comprising a number of government departments—initially relied on relationships formed through members’ prior work experiences to create closer links between departments for more coherent policies and services. This formal work experience was relied upon to generate understanding of each other and their departments, including the challenges and opportunities confronting their organisations and, in so doing, secure commitment to work better across departmental silos. However, these informal relations proved insufficient to shift from each Director’s primary focus on their own organisation or department and were eventually supplemented by the inclusion of formalised and stronger integration mechanisms, such as regularly scheduled and highly structured meetings, set programs of work and planned agendas. Supporting this was a Secretariat to provide administrative support and detailed programmatic information via a regular suite of communications. In addition the Premier of the state government acted as a powerful change agent, offering both positive and negative enticements to drive higher identification and engagement with the forum.  

The combined effect of this array of targeted and deliberate integration strategies and techniques meant that the previous low-level information sharing activities and limited commitment to network goals began to change, with more evidence of working towards collective rather than individual goals. Magnifying this change was the opportunity for Directors to spend quality time in an informal environment with government Ministers and local leaders —thus increasing opportunities for more personal interactions. As a consequence of this, there was a greater understanding and appreciation of issues,  the forum was better able to push past turf-based impediments and merely cooperative behaviour to exhibit more coordinative actions, more closely identified with the established goals of joint programming and policy development.

In summary, the formal focus of the forum was on collaboration, but in reality their goals were directly aligned with achieving coordination, while initially the relationship strength was cooperative.   These largely cooperative relationships had to be ‘turbo charged’  using more intensive relational building mechanisms, coupled with vertical integrating tools of the appointment of a Secretariat, mandate and formal structural integrating mechanisms. 

1.3. Coordination Case Study (2): Creating a network to achieve better integration

This case involves a network formed to achieve better integration of the work of local social service agencies. The formation of the network arose from top-down government policy and funding pressures to coordinate existing services to improve service delivery outcomes, although the formative documentation and rhetoric was shaped on notions of collaboration.

In this network, however, “far from being pushed into a new form by government funding,” participating agencies indicated that they were motivated to do this “because it was the right thing for our clients and our agencies”. A suite of linkage mechanisms were instituted to facilitate closer working relationships between agencies, including case management procedures and workshops in which a set of agreed mechanisms were developed to guide the interactions between participants and build commitment to the network.

Through these workshops and other network building devices members developed stronger interpersonal relations to support and encourage the thinking and behavioural changes they were making. Importantly, these changes in practice led to members becoming more committed to working with each other and to the agreed network goals. Despite the push for a collaborative model it was acknowledged that apart from small pockets of collaboration, “the network was probably more coordinative … lacking the member commitment and purpose to be fully collaborative”. Nonetheless, due to the combination of network members’ identification with the goals, their commitment to the network and each other, and coordinative network routines and practices they developed a number of service enhancements that led to more effective cross-agency projects.

Importantly, members noted that the rhetoric for collaboration, and the strong policy and funding push for collaboration presented a challenge to their early efforts at working together.  It required several workshops and group sessions to come to the realisation that they did not have the strength of relationships necessary to collaborate at the beginning:

We tried to bring agencies together in a closer way, but people were just not there, they were not in the space necessary for that type of commitment. Early on we were only able to meet and share information. So we had a meeting and decided to spend some time building relationships, decide what we really want to achieve, before we try to go further.

As a result, the goal of coordination became the focus of much of the ongoing work, with core members eventually attaining the strength of relationship and shared commitment to engage in the occasional collaborative endeavour. 

1.4. Collaboration Case Study (1): Responding to local service needs through better integration

This integration project was established in response to an identified need to improve the services offered or funded by government in a local area in Queensland, Australia. The defining instance for change was the violent death of an elderly citizen. As one member reflected “we [service agencies] all had had a collective responsibility for this tragedy”. The incident was widely perceived by both the local community and service providers to be the result of fragmented services in the area, leading to widespread demand for the agencies to move outside of their siloed service models to a networked response. Initially the agencies engaged in a series of breakfasts, facilitated by the local university community centre, as an informal way to get to know each other and learn about their individual and collective issues and problems. From these meetings there arose an agreement to work differently—to collaborative—in order to build a new local service system.

The project was funded over a three-year period from September 2000 to March 2003 to engage in genuine, community-shaped reform of government processes and services. Changes were also informed by research and worked to ensure that the services offered in the area were integrated, improved community well-being and strengthened the local community.

From the outset project members recognised that they had to significantly change their practices and the way they related to each other. As one project member noted: “We had to change the way we were working …We had to develop stronger, more collegiate relations.” A collaborative network model was adopted by key services as the best way to achieve the larger-scale and sustained change required to meet their purposes. Specific areas tackled included the ways in which the government planned, funded, implemented as well as evaluated strategies to reduce crime, improve school retention rates, improve community health and address a variety of other issues identified by the local community as being important.

To move forward, the project drew upon an array of integration mechanisms, most of which were focused on strengthening the relationships between previously competitive—and at times contentious—agencies and departments in that district.  Interest-based negotiation was also used to improve relations and build a sense of common purpose, around which all network members eventually coalesced. Collectively these tactics enabled the network to move beyond self-interested ‘turf protection’ to a search for ‘win-win’ outcomes for the region. For the project members the major catalyst to building stronger relationships and mutual commitment (collaboration) was a Graduate Certificate in Inter-Professional Development, which helped members to “unlearn old siloed behaviours and learn new collaboration practices”. Members invested two days a month for six months participating in the Graduate Certificate, the basis of which was action learning and reflective practice. For many the Graduate Certificate (and the relationships built therein) was the most important experience:

For me the relationship building was the most important outcome. Talking about practical outcomes we have created a process that allows for, and continues to encourage collaboration. We are talking about a deep residual capacity for collaboration through these relationships … for future mobilisation.

Through these mechanisms project members developed a stronger overall commitment to the projects and network processes and an appreciation of their interdependencies—all powerful preconditions for collaboration.  A sense of collective identity emerged, where members saw themselves not simply as organisational representatives but as part of a network, and significantly changed their behaviours and actions to facilitate the achievement of network goals. This enhanced alignment with the project and the terms of engagement served to smooth over potentially disruptive issues and progress mutual work agendas.  

On top of these relational building processes, the project relied heavily on a small administrative core responsible for moving the project and members forward, setting agendas and providing clear action plans: “they drive us, they keep us on track and stick the pins in”. It was commented that task-oriented action kept the project from becoming just “cups of tea and feel good actions”.  As well as strong local and departmental champions for the project, there was a deliberate strategy to link the project vertically to influential sponsor agencies such as the state government’s Treasury department to facilitate its access to decision-making and funding. 

This project was the only one of its kind in Queensland and is widely regarded as a strong exemplar for collaboration. It produced innovative, ground-breaking processes and outcomes that not only changed the way of working within the local district but had knock-on effects to neighbouring communities and, as hoped, it continues to have residual impact in this district.

Members directly attribute their successful outcomes to their adoption and operation of a collaborative network approach and to members’ high level of commitment to these ideals. The achievements did not come easily; members acknowledge that it was a high-risk initiative requiring an intense level of engagement by members, the full commitment of their organisations (for some, as the project became more intense and changed existing systems, there was need to renegotiate involvement) and drew on significant organisational and personal resources.

2. Resources

The following sections contain useful resources and exercises.

2.1. Case study resources

See : http://uq.edu.au/boilerhouse/goodna-sip/
Keast, R. 2004. Integrated Human Services: the Role of Networked Arrangements, PhD Thesis, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane.
Keast, R., Brown, K. Mandell, M.P. and Woolcock, G. 2004. Network Structures: Working Differently and Changing Expectations Public Administration Review 64 (3): 353-361.

Keast, R. and Mandell, M.P. 2014. Network Performance: A Complex Interplay or Form and Action, International Review Public Administration 18 (2):
Keast, R. and Brown, K. 2006. Adjusting to new Ways of Working: Experiments with Service Delivery in the Public Sector Australian Journal of Public Administration 34 4): 41-53.
Keast, R., Brown, K. and Guneskara, C. 2009. Network Capital: Borrowing on your Neighbours' Social Capital (pp 127-150), in G. Woolcock & L. Manderson (eds). Social Capital and Social Justice in Critical Perspective Charles Darwin University Press. Darwin: NT.
Keast, R and Waterhouse, J. 2014. Collaborative Networks and Innovation: the negotiation – management nexus (148-169), in C. Ansell & J. Torfing (eds) Public Innovation Through Collaboration and Design, Routledge, Oxon, UK
Keast, R, Brown, KA & Mandell, MP 2007, 'Getting the right mix: unpacking integration meanings and strategies', International Public Management Journal, vol. 6, no. 3, pp. 363-371.
ARACY Fact Sheets
Woolcock, G. and Boorman, C. 2003. Goodna Service Integration Project: Doing What We Know We Should, Final Report, the Community Service and Research Centre University of Queensland.
Boorman, C., and Woolcock, G. 2002. The Goodna Service Integration Project: Government and Community Working Together for Community Well-being in Goodna in T. Reddel (ed) Governing Local Communities, Building State and Community Capacity, The University of Queensland.
Ryan, R. 2004. Independent Assessment Gold Coast Service Network Final Report.

Connick, S. 2004. The Sacrememto Water Forum: A Case Study Institute of Urban and Regional Development IURD Working Papers Series (WP 2006-06), University of California Berkley USA.
O'Farrell, G. 2002. Public Sector Reform in Queensland Canberra Bulletin of Public Administration 104 (June): 6-8
Menzies, J. 2002. A Queensland Response Public Interest July: 26
Innes, J. and Booher, D. 2010. Planning with Complexity: Collaborative Rationality for Public Policy, Taylor & Francis, USA.

2.2. Collaboration general resources

Gray, B. 1989. Collaboration: Finding Common Ground for Multiparty Problems San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Huxhan, C. (ed). 1996. Creating Collaborative Advantage London: Sage
Huxham, C., and Vangen, S. 1996. Working Together: Key Themes in the Management of Relationships Between Public and Non-Profit Organisations International Journal of Public Sector Management 9 (7): 5-17
Huxham, C. 2000. The Challenge of Collaborative Advantage Public Management Review 2: 337-357
Keast, R., Brown, K. Mandell, M.P. and Woolcock, G. 2004. Network Structures: Working Differently and Changing Expectations Public Administration Review 64 (3): 353-361
Keast, R. and Mandell, M.P. 2014. Network Performance: A Complex Interplay or Form and Action, International Review Public Administration 18 (2):
Keast, R. and Brown, K. 2006. Adjusting to new Ways of Working: Experiments with Service Delivery in the Public Sector Australian Journal of Public Administration 34 94): 41-53.

O'Flynn, J. Buick F, Blackman D, Halligan J 2011, 'You Win Some, You Lose Some: Experiments with Joined-Up Government', International Journal of Public Administration 34 (4): 244-254. http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/individual/publication208710
Bryson, J. Crosby, B. and Stone, M. 2006. The Design and Implementation of Cross-Sector Collaborations Public Administration Review 66 (1): 44-55
Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (ARACY): Building Collaborative Practice Fact Sheets http://www.aracy.org.au/comment/fact-sheets-your-guide-to-building-collaborative-capacity
Keast, R. 2011. Joined-up Governance in Australia: How the Past Can Inform the Future International Journal of Public Administration 65 (4): 41-53
Keast, R, Brown, K. and Mandell, MP 2007, 'Getting the right mix: unpacking integration meanings and strategies', International Public Management Journal, 6 (3) 363-371.

2.3. Management, Leadership and New Skills resources

Crosby, B. and Bryson, J. 2005. Leadership for the Common Good: Tackling Public Problems in a Shared-Power World San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Silva, C. and McGuire, M. 2010. Leading Public Sector Networks: An Empirical Examination of Integrative Leadership Behaviour The Leadership Quarterly 21 (2): 264-277
Page, S. 2009. Managing for Results Across Agencies: Building Collaborative Capacity in Human Servcies, In Big Ideas in Collaborative management Bingham & O'Leary (eds) 138-161 Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe
Keast, R. and Mandell, M. 2014. A Composite Theory of Leadership and Management : Process Catalyst and Strategic Leveraging – theory of deliberate action in Collaborative Networks (33-50) in R. Keast, M. Mandell & R. Agranoff (eds) Network Theory in the Public Sector: Building New Theoretical Frameworks Routledge, New York:
Mandell, MP & Keast, RL 2008, evaluating the effectiveness of interorganizational relations through networks: developing a framework for revised performance measures', Public Management Review 10 (6): 715-731.
Vangen, S. and Huxham, C. 2003. Enacting Leadership for Collaborative Advantage: Dilemmas of Ideology and Pragmatism in the Activities of Partnership British Journal of Management, 14: 61–S76 (2003)
Keast, RL & Mandell, M 2014, The collaborative push: moving beyond rhetoric and gaining evidence', Journal of Management & Governance, 18 (1) 9-28
Agranoff, R. 2003. Collaborative Public Management: New Strategies for Local Government Washington DC. Georgetown University Press.

2.4. Websites

http://www.networksandcollaborations.com.au
http://uq.edu.au/boilerhouse/goodna-sip/
http://www.aracy.org.au/comment/fact-sheets-your-guide-to-building-collaborative-capacity