Advertisement

Time to Track Cross-Sector Collaboration: Digital Prescriptions for Governing Fragmented Governments

  • Khadijeh Roya RouzbehaniEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11589)

Abstract

Cross-sector collaborations are a noteworthy addition to the tools of public administration and authorities seek to collaborate in order to deal with cross-sector wicked problems. However, the rate of success is not noticeable due to the barriers to reach collaboration. This study identifies the barriers of different phases of cross-sector collaboration. A synergy map is used to classify the barriers in three clusters to address them via conceptual frameworks, visual thinking and online collaboration platforms to facilitate collaboration.

Keywords

Collaborative governance Digital tools Barriers 

References

  1. 1.
    Emerson, K., Nabatchi, T., Balogh, S.: An integrative framework for collaborative governance. J. Public Adm. Res. Theor. 22(1), 1–29 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ansell, Ch., Gash, A.: Collaborative governance in theory and practice. J. Public Adm. Res. Theor. 18(4), 543–571 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Agranoff, R.: Managing within Networks: Adding Value to Public Organizations. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC (2007)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Agranoff, R.: Collaborating to Manage: A Primer for the Public Sector. Georgetown University Press, Washington, DC (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Provan, K.G., Kenis, P.: Modes of network governance: structure, management, and effectiveness. J. Public Adm. Res. Theor. 18(2), 229–252 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gray, B.: Collaborating: Finding Common Ground for Multi-party Problems. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco (1989)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Huxham, C., Vangen, S.: Managing to Collaborate: The Theory and Practice of Collaborative Advantage. Routledge, New York (2005)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ostrom, E.: Governing the Commons. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ring, P., Van de Ven, A.: Developmental processes of cooperative interorganizational relationships. Acad. Manag. Rev. 19(1), 90–118 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Koschmann, M.A., Kuhn, T.R., Pfarrer, M.D.: A communicative framework of value in cross-sector partnerships. Acad. Manag. Rev. 37(2), 332–354 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Thomé, A.M.T., Scavarda, L.F., Scavarda, A.: Conducting systematic literature review in operations management. Prod. Plann. Control 27(5), 408–420 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Homans, G., Curtis Jr., Ch.: An Introduction to Pareto. Knopf Publishers, New York (1934)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Fawcett, S.B., et al.: Using empowerment theory in collaborative partnerships for community health and development. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 23, 677–697 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lasker, R.D., Weiss, E.S.: Broadening participation in community problem solving: a multidisciplinary model to support collaborative practice and research. J. Urban Health: Bull. N.Y. Acad. Med. 80, 14–60 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bruce, M.: Participatory partnerships: engaging and empowering to enhance environmental management and quality of life? Soc. Indic. Res. 71, 123–144 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schuckman, M.: Making hard choices: a collaborative governance model for the biodiversity context. Wash. Univ. Law Q. 79, 343 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Susskind, L., Cruikshank, J.: Breaking the Impasse: Consensual Approaches to Resolving Public Disputes. Basic Books, New York (1987)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Warner, J.F.: More sustainable participation? Multi-stakeholder platforms for integrated catchment management. Water Resour. Dev. 22(1), 15–35 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    English, M.: Who are the stakeholders in environmental risk decisions? Risk Health Saf. Environ. 11, 243–254 (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gunton, T.I., Day, J.C.: The theory and practice of collaborative planning in resource and environmental management. Environments 31(2), 5–19 (2003)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bryson, J.M., Crosby, B., Bloomberg, L.: Public value governance: moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Adm. Rev. 74(4), 445–456 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Andrew, S.A., Carr, J.B.: Mitigating uncertainty and risk in planning for regional preparedness: the role of bonding and bridging relationships. Urban Stud. 50(4), 709–724 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hawkins, C.V., Hu, Q., Feiock, R.C.: Self-organizing governance of local economic development: Informal policy networks and regional institutions. J. Urban Aff. 38(5), 643–660 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Granovetter, M.: The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Sociol. Theor. 1, 201–233 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Van der Voet, J., Kuipers, B.S., Groeneveld, S.: Implementing change in public organizations: the relationship between leadership and affective commitment to change in a public sector context. Public Manag. Rev. 18(6), 842–865 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rouzbehani, kh.: A new paradigm: collaborative governance. In: Canadian Association for Programs in Public Administration (CAPPA) Conference, Regina-Saskatchewan, 31 May and 1 June (2018)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mann, S.: Sustainable Lens: A Visual Guide. Createspace Independent Pub., New Zealand (2011)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sousanis, N.: Unflattening. Harvard University Press, Massachusetts (2015)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bellafontaine, T.: Innovation Labs: Bridging Think Tanks and Do Tanks. Policy Horizons Canada, Ottawa (2013)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tonurist, P., Kattel, R., Lember, V.: Innovation labs in the public sector: what they are and what they do. Public Manag. Rev. 1–25 (2017)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Glanville, R.: Designing complexity. Perform Improv. Quart 20(2), 75–96 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brown, B.: The four worlds of sustainability: drawing upon four universal perspectives to support sustainability initiatives. Integral Institute, Boulder, Colorado (2007)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Lindquist, E.A.: Visualization practice and government: strategic investments for more democratic governance. In: Gil-Garcia, J.R., Pardo, T.A., Luna-Reyes, L.F. (eds.) Policy Analytics, Modelling, and Informatics. PAIT, vol. 24, pp. 225–246. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-61762-6_10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Elleström, L.: Modelling human communication: mediality and semiotics. In: Olteanu, A., Stables, A., Borţun, D. (eds.) Meanings & Co. Numanities - Arts and Humanities in Progress, vol. 6, pp. 7–32. Springer, Cham (2019).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-91986-7_2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Langer, S.K.: Philosophy in a New Key: A study in the symbolism of Reason, Rite, and Art, 3rd edn. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1973)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Agrawala, M., Li, W., Berthouzoz, F.: Design principles for visual communication. Commun. ACM 54(4), 60–69 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Endsley, M.R.: Toward a theory of situation awareness in dynamic systems. Hum. Factors 37, 32–64 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Clark, H.H., Marshall, C.R.: Definite reference and mutual knowledge. In: Joshi, A.K., Webber, B.L., Sag, I.A. (eds.) Elements of Discourse Understanding, pp. 10–63. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1981)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Clark, H.H., Wilkes-Gibbs, D.: Referring as a collaborative process. Cognition 22, 1–39 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Bolstad, C.A., Endsley, M.R.: Shared mental models and shared displays: an empirical evaluation of team performance. In: Proceedings of the 43rd Meeting of the Human Factors & Ergonomics Society. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, Houston (1999)Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gergle, D., Kraut, R.E., Fussell, S.R.: Using visual information for grounding and awareness in collaborative tasks. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 28(1), 1–39 (2013)Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Monk, A., Watts, L.: Peripheral participation in video-mediated communication. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 52, 933–958 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Whittaker, S., Geelhoed, E., Robinson, E.: Shared workspaces: how do they work and when are they useful? Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 39, 813–842 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Brennan, S.E.: How conversation is shaped by visual and spoken evidence. In: Trueswell, J.C., Tanenhaus, M.K. (eds.) Approaches to Studying World-Situated Language Use: Bridging the Language-as-Product and Language-as-Action Traditions, pp. 95–129. MIT Press, Cambridge (2005)Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Brennan, S.E., Kuhlen, A.K., Charoy, J.: Discourse and Dialogue. The Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Neuroscience. Volume 3 Language and Thought, vol. 3, pp. 149–205, 23 March 2018Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Malone, T.W., Laubacher, R., Dellarocas, C.: The collective intelligence genome. IEEE Eng. Manag. Rev. 38(3), 38 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Yu, L.L., Nickerson, J.V., Sakamoto, Y.: Collective creativity: where we are and where we might go. In: Proceedings of Collective Intelligence (2012)Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Attwood, M., Pedler, M., Pritchard, S., Wilkinson, D.: Leading Change: A Guide to Whole System Working. The Policy Press, England (2003)Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Rouzbehani, K.: Problem-structuring methods: collaborative action with an application to the healthcare sector in Iran. Asia Pac. J. Public Adm. 38(4), 281–288 (2016)MathSciNetGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of VictoriaVictoriaCanada

Personalised recommendations