Case Studies and Resources

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.