Discovering Collaborative Advantage: The Contributions of Goal Categories and Visual Strategy Mapping

Bryson, John M.; Ackermann, Fran; Eden, Colin

doi:10.1111/puar.12608

Cited by 59 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 50 publications

(54 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Believing that collaboration is the way of the future, many professional organizations have established collaboration as a norm of professional practice. Finally, government agencies have been required to pursue networked approaches through mandates from higher levels of government (coercive isomorphism) because of their presumed effectiveness (Bryson, Ackermann, and Eden ). This belief has resulted in higher levels of government making their funding and support conditional upon a collaborative approach as a hedge against risk (Bryson, Crosby and Stone ; Ostrower ).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Collaboration: The Solution to One Problem Often Causes Another

Silvia

2017

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Collaboration has become the predominant approach to solving complex public problems. This choice, however, often is not driven by demonstrated effectiveness. Collaboration is instead chosen in the hope that a networked arrangement will be more effective than individual organizations working on the issue alone. Questions regarding collaborative effectiveness persist and constitute a significant challenge facing both public management practitioners and public administration scholars. In light of the case study in this issue of Public Administration Review by Maurits Waardenburg and colleagues, this article reviews the current thinking on the measurement of collaborative performance and discusses steps that professionals can take to evaluate the effectiveness of their collaborative endeavors.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Collaboration: The Solution to One Problem Often Causes Another

Silvia

2017

Public Administration Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Likewise, the goals of the partnership will broaden, depending on the nature of the problem. Bryson et al (2016) distinguished between different 'goals systems': with a bearing on the whole of society. They identified 'core goals' (either shared or embraced by an individual organisation related to its core activities); 'beyond core goals' (including positive and negative public value goals related to positive and negative externalities); 'negative avoidance goals' (avoiding reputation effects and disasters related to direct risks); and 'not-my-goals' (goals for which nobody wants to be held accountable for their achievement, even though they can be supported).…”

Section: Third-order Change Challengesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In less complex settings, the graphical representation will support the development of the monitoring and learning plan. In complex settings, the graphical representation can be understood as a visual strategy map (Bryson et al 2016), which may constitute the baseline strategy of the partnership.…”

Section: Phase 2: Planning and Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A graphical presentation, depicting an easily understood representation of the ToC. Visual strategy mapping (Bryson et al 2016) aids in action research and mutual learning projects. Narratives, combined with strategic mapping techniques, create frames.…”

Section: Matching Theories Of Change With the Transformative Capacitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The CSP literature acknowledges that complex problems need more complex interventions (Austin and Seitanidi 2012), but falls short of delineating what this implies in the design phase of a partnership. The practical relevance of the idea of 'collaborative advantage' (Huxham and Vangen 2004) therefore critically depends on CSPs embracing the systemic goals for which they are designed (Bryson et al 2016), on the validity of the proposed intervention (Babiak 2009;Liket et al 2014) and on the appropriate monitoring and evaluation techniques to keep track of evolving insights of progress (Patton 2011;Patton et al 2016).…”

Section: Introduction: Designing Collaborative Interventions For Systmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Capturing Collaborative Challenges: Designing Complexity-Sensitive Theories of Change for Cross-Sector Partnerships

Tulder

Keen²

2018

J Bus Ethics

149

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systems change requires complex interventions. Cross-sector partnerships (CSPs) face the daunting task of addressing complex societal problems by aligning different backgrounds, values, ideas and resources. A major challenge for CSPs is how to link the type of partnership to the intervention needed to drive change. Intervention strategies are thereby increasingly based on Theories of Change (ToCs). Applying ToCs is often a donor requirement, but it also reflects the ambition of a partnership to enhance its transformative potential. The current use of ToCs in partnering efforts varies greatly. There is a tendency for a linear and relatively simple use of ToCs that does limited justice to the complexity of the problems partnerships aim to address. Since partnership dynamics are already complex and challenging themselves, confusion and disagreement over the appropriate application of ToCs is likely to hamper rather than enhance the transformative potential of partnerships. We develop a complexity alignment framework and a diagnostic tool that enables partnerships to better appreciate the complexity of the context in which they operate, allowing them to adjust their learning strategy. This paper applies recent insights into how to deal with complexity from both the evaluation and theory of change fields to studies investigating the transformative capacity of partnerships. This can (1) serve as a check to define the challenges of partnering projects and (2) can help delineate the societal sources and layers of complexity that cross-sector partnerships deal with such as failure, insufficient responsibility taking and collective action problems at four phases of partnering.

show abstract

Sustainability‐based value creation within a multi‐stakeholder network: Balancing expectation conflicts within the Amazon context

Dias,

Hamza,

Lievens

et al. 2024

Bus Strat Env

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The current paper reports on ways to better co‐create sustainability‐based value in multi‐stakeholder networks by focusing on stakeholder expectations, their resulting conflicts, and feasible interventions. Indeed, the literature review reveals a growing research focus on multi‐stakeholder networks involving non‐governmental organizations, traditional communities, and companies operating in vulnerable natural environments. This research interest is driven by the growing need for forest preservation and its impact on creating a more sustainable ecosystem. Our study uses the case of Origens Brasil, a multi‐stakeholder network promoting ethical trade and protection of the Amazon Forest, and involves 47 interviews, and observational data. We contribute by identifying stakeholder expectations and shedding light on the unique conflicts that emerge from differences in these expectations. Furthermore, we developed a framework for sustainability‐based value creation derived from expectation conflict intervening.

show abstract

Discovering Collaborative Advantage: The Contributions of Goal Categories and Visual Strategy Mapping

Cited by 59 publications

References 50 publications

Evaluating Collaboration: The Solution to One Problem Often Causes Another

Evaluating Collaboration: The Solution to One Problem Often Causes Another

Capturing Collaborative Challenges: Designing Complexity-Sensitive Theories of Change for Cross-Sector Partnerships

Sustainability‐based value creation within a multi‐stakeholder network: Balancing expectation conflicts within the Amazon context

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About