Skip to main content

Inter-professional Collaboration: An Evaluation Study

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Innovating in Practice

Abstract

Both conventional wisdom and some of the literature in this area tell us that public organizations and services find it hard to innovate. We present a case study on the impact of a third sector intra-service innovation on the interservices’ network of a regional child welfare agency. The innovation was implemented in 2010 and the follow-up presented in this chapter was completed in 2014. The innovation consisted of the introduction of a new tool for the direct, systematic observation of children’s behaviour and attitudes. Residential youth workers, an important part of the child welfare agency’s workforce, introduced the new tool in order to improve the quality of their contribution to the information flow on young people in residential care. The follow-up research allowed us to recognize that the introduction of a new tool, while improving team work performance and reducing interpersonal and team conflicts at the intra-service’s educative service level, highlighted an important asymmetry between service providers in the child welfare agency network with regard to the provision of information.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The costs of the investigation were partly covered by a local private foundation (CARITRO, Trento). Data were collected in February–May 2014.

  2. 2.

    Data referred to open, axial and selective coding of focus group transcripts.

References

  • Aagaard, P. (2012). Drivers and barriers of public innovation in crime prevention. The Innovation Journal, 17(1), article 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boutanquoi, M., Bournel-Bosson, M., & Minary, J.-P. (2013). Evaluating situations in child welfare: From tools to workgroups. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(7), 1152–1157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Maglio, A. T. (2005). Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954–2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research, 5(4), 475–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2003). The era of open innovation. MIT Sloan Management Review, 44(3), 35–41.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open innovation: The new imperative for creating and profiting from technology. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23(3), 239–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corwin, L., Corbin, J. H., & Mittelmark, M. B. (2012). Producing synergy in collaborations: A successful hospital innovation. The Innovation Journal, 17(1), article 5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention (pp. 107–126). New York: HarperCollins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunningham, P., Grant-Pearce, C., Green, L., Miles, I., Rigby, J., & Uyarra, E. (2005). In sickness, in health and in innovation: NHS DIRECT—A health sector innovation study. Administration, 53(3), 42–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Cremer, D., & Sedikides, C. (2005). Self-uncertainty and responsiveness to procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(2), 157–173.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vries, H. A., Bekkers, V. J. J. M., & Tummers, L. G. (2014). Innovation in the public sector: A systematic review and future research agenda. Speyer: EGPA Conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dey, I. (1993). Qualitative data analysis. A user-friendly guide for social scientists. London: Routledge.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Dierkes, M., Berthoin Antal, A., Child, J., & Nonaka, I. (Eds.). (2001). Handbook of organizational learning and knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Djellal, F., Gallouj, F., & Miles, I. (2013). Two decades of research on innovation in services: Which place for public services? Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 12(27), 98–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolan, P., Metcalfe, R., Powdthavee, N., Beale, A., & Pritchard, D. (2008, September 12). Innovation and well-being. Paper prepared for NESTA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dossou-Yovo, A., & Tremblay, D.-G. (2012). Public policy, intermediaries and innovation system performance: A comparative analysis of Quebec and Ontario. The Innovation Journal, 17(1), article 3.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edvardsson, B., Tronvoll, B., & Gruber, T. (2011). Expanding understanding of service exchange and value co-creation: A social construction approach. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 39, 327–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ellström, P.-E. (2010). Practice-based innovation: A learning perspective. Journal of Workplace Learning, 22(1/2), 27–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feng, J.-Y., Fetzer, S., Chen, Y.-W., Yeh, L., & Huang, M.-C. (2010). Multidisciplinary collaboration reporting child abuse: A grounded theory study. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47(12), 1483–1490.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 327–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredrickson, B. L. (1998). What good are positive emotions? Review of General Psychology, 2(3), 300–319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gallouj, F., & Zanfei, A. (2013). Innovation in public services: Filling a gap in the literature. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 12(27), 89–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gambrill, E., & Shlonsky, A. (2001). The need for comprehensive risk management programs in child protective services. Children and Youth Services Review, 23(1), 79–107.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Golia, S., & Pedrazza, M. (2014). Assessing the relational competence as the core dimension of social worker’s perceived self efficacy through the Rasch model. Electronic Journal of Applied Statistical Analysis, 7(1), 58–80.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gremler, D. D. (2004). The critical incident technique in service research. Journal of Service Research, 7(1), 65–89.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harré, R. (1993). Social being (2nd ed.). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinrich, C. J. (2002). Outcomes-based performance management in the public sector: Implications for government accountability and effectiveness. Public Administration Review, 62(6), 712–725.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isen, A. M. (1999). Positive affect. In T. Dalgleish & M. J. Power (Eds.), Handbook of cognition and emotion (pp. 521–539). New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman, H. (1981). The administrative behavior of Federal Bureau Chiefs. Washington: The Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • La Palombara, J. (2001). Power and politics in organizations: Public and private sector comparisons. In M. Dierkes et al. (Eds.), Handbook of organisational learning and knowledge (pp. 557–581). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. M., Hwang, T., & Choi, D. (2012). Open innovation in the public sector of leading countries. Management Decision, 50(1), 147–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, L. C. (2007). Reflective practices: Challenges to social work education in Hong Kong. Social Work Education, 26(6), 632–644.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leung, Z. C. S. (2009). Knowledge management in social work: Types and processes of knowledge sharing in social service organizations. The British Journal of Social Work, 39(4), 693–709.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mergel, I., & Desouza, C. K. (2013). Implementing open innovation in the public sector: The case of Challenge.gov. Public Administration Review, 73(6), 882–890.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Metze, T., & Levelt, M. (2012). Barriers to credible innovations: Collaborative regional governance in the Netherlands. The Innovation Journal, 17(1), article 8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. G. (1965). Living systems: Basic concepts. Behavioral Science, 10(3), 193–237.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, J. G. (1978). Living systems. New York: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munro, E. (1999). Common errors of reasoning in child protection work. Child Abuse and Neglect, 23(8), 745–758.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Munro, E. (2009). Managing societal and institutional risk in child protection. Risk Analysis, 29(7), 1015–1023.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nonaka, I. (1994). A dynamic theory of organizational knowledge creation. Organization Science, 5(1), 14–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nouwen, E., Decuyper, S., & Put, J. (2012). Team decision making in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 2101–2116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pedrazza, M., Trifiletti, E., Berlanda, S., & di Bernardo, G. A. (2013). Self-efficacy in social work: Development and initial validation of the self-efficacy scale for social workers. Social Sciences, 2, 191–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, A. M., & Fenton, E. M. (Eds.). (2000). The innovating organization. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Piening, E. P. (2011). Insights into the process dynamics of innovation implementation. Public Management Review, 13(1), 127–157.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Quintane, E., Casselman, R. M., Reiche, B. S., & Nylund, P. A. (2011). Innovation as a knowledge-based outcome. Journal of Knowledge Management, 15(6), 928–947.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rivera, M. A., & Rogers, E. M. (2004). Evaluating public sector innovation in networks: Extending the reach of the National Cancer Institute’s web-based health communication intervention research initiative. The Innovation Journal, 9(3), 1–5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, M. (1998). The definition and measurement of innovation. Melbourne Institute Working Paper, 10, 5–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumpeter, J. A. (1980). Theory of economic development. An inquiry into profits, capital, credit, interest and the business cycle. Somerset, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J. A. (1995). Semi-structured interviewing and qualitative analysis. In J. A. Smith, R. Harrè, & L. van Langenhove (Eds.), Rethinking methods in psychology (pp. 9–26). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sole, D., & Edmondson, A. (2002). Situated knowledge and learning in dispersed teams. British Journal of Management, 13(S2), S17–S34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sørensen, E., & Torfing, J. (2012). Introduction: Collaborative innovation in the public sector. The Innovation Journal, 17(1), 1–14.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tan, B. S. (2004). The consequences of innovation. The Innovation Journal, 9(3), 1–42.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsoukas, H., & Vladimirou, E. (2001). What is organizational knowledge. Journal of Management Studies, 38(7), 973–993.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vulliamy, A. P., & Sullivan, R. (2000). Reporting child abuse: Pediatricians’ experiences with the child protection system. Child Abuse and Neglect, 24(11), 1461–1470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wallin, M. W., & von Krogh, G. (2010). Organizing for open innovation: Focus on the integration of knowledge. Organizational Dynamics, 39, 145–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber, M. (1922). Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. Berkley, CA: U. California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yen, R. H., Wang, W. K., Wei, C.-P., Hsu, S. H.-Y., & Chiu, H.-C. (2012). Service innovation readiness: Dimensions and performance outcome. Decision Support Systems, 53(4), 813–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This study was supported by the CARITRO Foundation, Trento, Italy, in 2013: Trento University (principal investigator Prof. Olga Bombardelli), Verona University (investigator Prof. Monica Pedrazza), CeRP Milan and Trento (Dr. Simona Taccani and Dr. Cristina Zorzato).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Monica Pedrazza .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pedrazza, M., Sartori, R., Berlanda, S. (2017). Inter-professional Collaboration: An Evaluation Study. In: Russo-Spena, T., Mele, C., Nuutinen, M. (eds) Innovating in Practice. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43380-6_21

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics