Utilizing Collaboration Theory to Evaluate Strategic Alliances

Abstract

Increasingly, collaboration between business, non-profit, health and educational agencies is being championed as a powerful strategy to achieve a vision otherwise not possible when independent entities work alone. But the definition of collaboration is elusive and it is often difficult for organizations to put collaboration into practice and assess it with certainty. Program evaluators can assist practitioners concerned with the development of a strategic alliance predicated on collaboration by understanding and utilizing principles of collaboration theory. The Strategic Alliance Formative Assessment Rubric (SAFAR) is an assessment tool that captures central principles of collaboration and has been used as part of a four-step evaluation process to help alliance leaders, managers, and members in Safe School/Healthy Student Initiatives to quantitatively and qualitatively gauge, celebrate, and communicate the relative strength of their collaborative endeavor over time. The collaboration principles and corresponding assessment processes described in this article can be used by evaluators of large- or small-scale initiatives that seek to capitalize on the synergistic power of the “collaborative effort.”

Validation of the Thomson, Perry and Miller (2007) Collaboration Instrument in the South African context

“…There is a perspective that collaboration occurs in different stages, and hence, it is a developmental process that requires reflection, review and learning (Frey, Lohmeier, Lee & Tollefson, 2006;Gajda, 2004;Peterson, 1991). Peterson (1991) developed a three-stage model of collaboration, namely, cooperation, coordination and collaboration.…”

“…This implies that as the group progresses through the stages, effectiveness increases. Gajda (2004) expanded the three stages to five, identifying 'networking, cooperating, partnering, merging and unifying' (Gajda, 2004, p. 71). These are referred to as levels of integration.…”

“…With a limited number of tests developed specifically for South Africa, it is not unusual to make use of international instruments (Foxcroft & Roodt, 2005;Gajda, 2004;Orchard et al, 2012). It is, however, necessary to be cautious when using a measurement instrument originally validated in a different setting (Gregory, 2005).…”

Street Level Divergence in the Functioning of Social Welfare Networks

“…Many other scholars, however, have emphasized the potential variability in the levels of integration among participants and how those differences relate to the objectives of the relationship (Bailey & Koney, 2000;Gajda, 2004;Mandell & Steelman, 2003;Vangen & Huxham, 2003). For example, Woodland and Hutton (2012) argue that more complex and higher stakes purposes tend to warrant higher levels of integration.…”

“…The systemic dimension, as a second-order construct, consisted of three first-order reflective constructs. To create the initial pool of items for the systemic dimension (Mandell & Steelman, 2003;Mattessich et al, 2001) measurements of interaction frequency and mode (Agranoff & Lindsay, 1983), degrees of autonomy (Gajda, 2004;Margerum, 2002;Taylor-Powell, Rossing, & Geran, 1998), and role clarity (House & Rizzo, 1972) were reviewed.…”