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

Abstract

Orientation: Collaboration is deemed important in today’s connected and complex business environment. People’s ability to collaborate with each other in organisations is becoming a business imperative. This study focuses on a valid measurement of collaboration within organisations.Research purpose: Thomson, Perry and Miller (2007) developed a collaboration measurement instrument in the United States. The aim of this study was to validate this instrument for a South African context.Motivation for the study: South African organisations face unique challenges that require optimal use of resources to improve business results. Effective collaboration is considered a powerful strategy to achieve this. Measuring the extent of collaboration can help to identify required changes in business practices. As far as could be established, there is no evidence of collaboration instruments developed and validated in South Africa.Research design, approach and method: Additional items were designed for further development of the Thomson, Perry and Miller (2007) Collaboration Instrument sub-scales, as suggested by the authors. The revised questionnaire consisting of 31 (17 existing, 14 new) items was distributed electronically to 4200 employees in two organisations, with 343 valid responses received. Reliability and construct validity were tested, as was convergent validity of the norms factor with the Trust in Teams Scale.Main findings: The results of the study support a four-factor, 29-item model of collaboration when applied to a South African sample. Cronbach’s alpha ranged between 0.85 and 0.95. Confirmatory Factor Analysis fits were at an acceptable level. Convergent validity showed a moderate fit with the data.Practical/managerial implications: South African managers and human resources practitioners can utilise results to foster a collaborative environment.Contribution/value-add: This study builds on the theoretical concept of collaboration as defined by Thomson, Perry and Miller (2007).

Nonprofit and public sector interorganizational collaboration in disaster recovery: Lessons from the field

“…This model was initially developed to address the lack of a common theory of collaboration. The dimensions were considered suitable for this study as they sought to categorize generic and not industry‐specific elements of collaboration (Roberts, van Wyk, & Dhanpat, ). In their recommendations for future research, Thomson et al () encourage the exploration of factors that influence variations in the five dimensions of collaboration across widely different contexts.…”

Measuring the Governance of Collaborative Practices for Stunting Management in Lampung, Indonesia

“…This instrument was developed to address the lack of a common theory of collaboration, in order to inform practice. The instrument measures collaboration in general business, not industry-specific settings, and have been empirically tested and proven by other researchers in different research contexts [20]. For these reasons, this instrument is considered suitable for measuring collaborative practice in Indonesia context.…”

“…Conceptually, the definition of collaboration that a common and accepted does not exist. This lack of clarity around collaboration is considered an obstacle to supporting and improving collaboration [20]. However, there are generic definitions that suggested for the purpose of the study: "collaboration as process in which autonomous or semiautonomous actors interact through formal and informal negotiation, jointly creating rules and structures governing their relationships and ways to act or decide on the issues that brought them together.…”

A multiple case study of an interorganizational collaboration: Exploring the first year of an industry partnership focused on middle school engineering education

“…We chose the most developed of these frameworks to guide our analysis. This framework from Thomson and Perry (2006) and Thomson et al (2007) is currently being applied across varied contexts (e.g., Roberts et al, 2017) and provided our team with the following dimensions of collaboration: governance, administration, organizational autonomy, mutuality, and norms of trust and reciprocity. As will become apparent in the discussion of findings, these dimensions are not exclusive but are often concurrent, integrated processes.…”