collaboration report 2015

Report on theITP Sector

Collaboration Practices

Project

1

Report on theITP SECTOR COLLABORATION PRACTICES PROJECTTDr Jo Whittle, Dr Sally Bodkin-Allen and Dr Jerry HoffmanSouthern Institute of Technology Research Institute

Report on theITP Sector Collaboration Practices Project

2

The report on the ITP Sector Collaboration Practices Project is published by the Research Institute of the Southern Institute of Technology.

April 2015

Authors

Dr Jo Whittle, Dr Sally Bodkin-Allen, and Dr Jerry Hoffman

Design

Elana Bai

Front cover image

Elana Bai

Printing

SIT Printery

Contact details

Dr Sally Bodkin-Allen

Research Manager

Southern Institute of Technology

[email protected]

0800 4 0 FEES (0800 4 0 3337)

www.sit.ac.nz

Southern Institute of Technology

Private Bag 90114

133 Tay Street

Invercargill



Project

3

PREFACEAs core contributors to the New Zealand tertiary sector, Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics (ITPs) are committed to enhancing the experiences and achievements of our students through engaging with community, regional, national and international partners. I am pleased to present the report on the ITP Sector Collaboration Practices Project. It reports on a number of effective collaborations between ITPs and other stakeholders and evaluates the factors that make for successful collaborations. The government expects tertiary education providers to work with each other and with other key stakeholders for a variety of purposes: from improving operating efficiency to increasing learning opportunities for students. Collaborative ways of working together are seen as particularly beneficial for the ITP sector. This project itself has been a collaborative effort and I wish to acknowledge the support of NZITP and the generous contribution of information from the nine institutes involved in the project.

As you will see, data gathered from the ITPs that took part in the project:

» confirms that ITPs collaborate with a diversity of partners both locally and nationally to achieve mutual benefits, and to grow social and economic capacity;

» affirms that students are consistently viewed as the key stakeholders in collaborative projects that ITPs are engaged in, even if they are not directly engaged in the project;

» identifies a number of factors that lead to establishing and maintaining successful collaboration between ITPs and other stakeholders; and

» reinforces the importance of supporting and maintaining collaborative relationships, due to the significant benefits for students, staff and the institution.

As the report shows, ITPs are already engaged in a variety of collaborative endeavours. At the same time, by bringing different collaborative ventures together in one place, the Collaboration Practices Project represents an opportunity for ITPs to revisit and refine their strategies and approaches to collaboration.

This project has focused on the relationships that ITPs have with external organisations to achieve three distinct goals: enhancing teaching and learning, sharing knowledge and stimulating creativity, and increasing efficiency of resource use. The results of the Collaboration Practices Project recognise the involvement of ITPs in New Zealand’s tertiary sector. I have no doubt that collaborations between ITPs and external partners will continue to grow and develop in the future. I hope that you enjoy reading the report and that the information it provides on collaboration in the ITPs sector is useful and instructive.

Penny Simmonds Chief Executive Officer Southern Institute of Technology


4

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The ITP Sector Collaboration Practices Project is a joint research project supported by New Zealand Insitutes of Technology and Polytechnics (NZITP) and Southern Institute of Technology (SIT). The

key purpose of the project is to evaluate what makes for successful collaborations that bring mutual benefits to partners, with a particular focus on collaboration between Insitutes of Technology and Polytechnics (ITPs). It explores the ways in which ITPs collaborate with each other, as well as with other stakeholders, to: enhance the quality of teaching and learning, share knowledge and stimulate creativity, and increase efficiency in the use of resources.

CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT. Collaboration between ITPs and with outside stakeholders is an integral part of the way that ITPs do business. Collaborative ways of working are regarded as beneficial for the ITP sector and to add value for their external stakeholders. The government expects tertiary education institutions to work collaboratively with each other, and with other key stakeholders, to improve operating efficiency, meet economic goals and improve learning outcomes for students. Collaboration is a focal point in the New Zealand Tertiary Education Strategy 2014-2019 (MoE & MBIE, 2014) which states that the future tertiary education system will need to be “more outward-facing and engaged” with strong links to industry, communities, schools and the global economy (p. 6).

The ITP Sector Collaboration Practices Project was developed within this context of outward-reaching initiatives and partnerships by the tertiary sector and the project aims to share the experiences of collaborating. Those working in ITPs have a great deal of collective experience and wisdom about what makes for successful collaboration. This report combines data from questionnaires and interviews involving a wide variety of staff in academic, support and management roles involved in inter-organisational collaborations at nine ITPs around New Zealand. It offers lessons for what makes collaborations successful, how to manage collaborative processes, and how to avoid some of the common challenges. The findings are supported by a number of ‘vignettes’ that showcase a range of indicative collaborative projects in which ITPs play a key role.

DEFINING “COLLABORATION”. For the purposes of this research ‘collaboration’ refers to any relationship an ITP has with external organisations to achieve the goals of enhancing teaching and learning, sharing knowledge and stimulating creativity or increasing efficiency of resource use. Such relationships may be with one or more external organisations. Drawing on the literature discussed above, a collaborative relationship needs to have a number of key attributes. A collaboration:

ª is mutually beneficial;

ª is aimed at achieving a common goal or shared purpose;

ª involves the sharing of resources and joint decision-making;


4



Project

5

ª relies on collective responsibility, and

ª offers mutual benefits for partners.

THE ATTRIBUTES OF ‘DEEP COLLABORATION’. This project also seeks to describe the factors that support ‘deep collaboration’, which is defined as deeply embedded and long term inter-organisational partnerships between ITPs and external partners. In addition to the key characteristics of collaboration in general, deep collaboration involves the creation of a new entity with a common mission and unique goals, in which each organisation enhances the capacity of its partner organisations to achieve these goals. Such relationships are typically long-term and can adapt to changes in individual membership or in the political climate.

THE BENEFITS TO ITPS OF COLLABORATING. ITPs in this study place a high value on seeking and supporting collaborative relationships, in particular those they believe will contribute to enhancing student success. Participants expressed enthusiasm for the projects they had been involved in, and see collaborating as not only ‘normal business’ but also ‘good sense’ and worth the time and resources needed to establish and sustain these relationships.

Research participants demonstrated an awareness of the value they could add to their local and regional communities. Collaborations were based on a drive to achieve mutual benefits and to grow social and economic capacity. ITPs are successfully collaborating with other Tertiary Education Organisations (TEOs), and particularly with other ITPs. Such collaborations were movitated by practical considerations including: a need for research partners; the reduction in competition between ITPs, and opportunities to share resources or Equivalent Full-time Students (EFTs).

Students are consistently viewed

as the key stakeholders in collaborative projects that ITPs are engaged in, even when they are not directly involved in these projects. Participants indicated that students benefited from collaborative relationships by enhanced teaching and learning opportunities and through engagement with potential employers and wider communities.

The benefits participants identified from collaborative arrangements they were involved in included:

ª one collaboration was likely to lead to further collaborative relationships with the same partner organisations;

ª increased public profile and status of the institutes;

ª increased levels of trust and understanding among partner organisations;

ª shared knowledge and skills;

ª enhanced teaching through a greater awareness of employer or stakeholder needs;

ª greater employment opportunities for graduates;

ª upskilling and capacity building for ITP staff;

ª improved research capacity and confidence, and

ª mutual development of institutes and the communities that they are part of.

SUCCESSFUL COLLABORATIONS:

ª enabled instutions to maintain their independence within the collaboration;

ª distributed the work fairly among partners;

ª were able to adapt to changing conditions;

ª were ones where partners had a clear sense of their roles and responsibilities;

ª had a clear shared goal or purpose;

ª were made up of cooperative and

highly engaged partners;

ª had some informal contact with external partners outside of organised meetings;

ª involved face to face contact with external partners at least occasionally;

ª shared resources and costs fairly;

ª involved partners with similar values or compatible ways of working;

ª maintained a sense of equality and equitable access to information and decision-making responsibility.

FACTORS THAT SUPPORT SUCCESSFUL ESTABLISHMENT OF COLLABORATIONS:

ª Collaborations are based on formal agreements between partners. This may be a memorandum of understanding at senior management level, or a more simple arrangement with a contracts or terms of reference signed by project members.

ª ITP partner organisations of choice are those that enhance the reputation of their institutions or that share a common vision or purpose with their institutions.

ª It is easier to establish a collaborative project with organisations that an ITP, or the individual staff member, has existing contacts with or has successfully collaborated with in the past.

ª The ability to capitalise on opportunities to develop collaborative relationships relies on ITP staff who are embedded in their communities and attuned to possibilities.

ª Developing a mutual understanding of concepts or ‘shared language’ between partners, especially when working with community or business organisations that are not familiar with the tertiary sector.

ª Establishing a clear, shared goal or mission statement helps to focus collaborative efforts at the outset.



Project

5


6

ª Face to face contact with partners to help build rapport and trust, particularly in the early stages to establish common goals and understandings.

ª There is value in all partners agreeing to a written code of conduct or working agreement that can be referred to in times of conflict.

ª Issues around resourcing input, the roles of organisations and individuals in the collaboration and leadership need to be explicitly addressed and agreed upon.

ª Explicitly considering the process of collaboration in its earliest stages including addressing such matters as: what motivates each partner; where the balance of power lies; how disagreements will be addressed; how tasks and resources will be fairly distributed and how decisions will be made.

FACTORS THAT HELP MAINTAIN A COLLABORATION:

ª Realistic expectations of the resources needed to establish and maintain a collaborative project, especially the time commitment.

ª Clear support from ITP management of collaborative arrangements and trust in ITP representatives taking part in the collaborations.

ª Ongoing and timely communication including quick responses to emails or written correspondence.

ª At least some ongoing face to face contact between partners.

ª Jointly establishing a realistic project timeline that aligns with the needs and demands of individual partner organisations.

ª Working to agreed deadlines and meeting targets.

ª Recognising the efforts and contributions made by team members.

ª Sharing the rewards and jointly celebrating successes.

DEEP COLLABORATIONS:

ª are fully embedded and long term inter-organisational partnerships between ITPs and external partners;

ª do not rely on the input of particular individuals but can weather changes in personnel and the wider socio-political environment;

ª involve the development of a new entity with a common mission and goals that are unique to that partnership;

ª are mutually beneficial processes in which each organisation enhances the capacity of partner organisations to achieve a common purpose;

ª allow for the full sharing of responsibilities and rewards;

ª are supported by high levels of communication, both formal and formal, among partners;

ª are well suited to tackle complex and interdependent issues that no single organisation can resolve;

ª have a shared measurement system for reporting on success of the project, which allows participants to hold each other accountable and learn from each other;

ª can be reinforced by developing a shared measurement system for reporting on success of the project, which allows participants to hold each other accountable and learn from each other, and

ª work best when they include backbone or additional support and coordination that takes the burden for this off individual organisations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The researchers would like to thank staff from the nine ITPs who participated in the research and who generously contributed their time and expertise. The report draws heavily on their combined contributions. We would also like to thank those who read and approved drafts of the vignettes, and the staff members who acted as contact points at ITPs or who helped organise research visits.

We appreciate funding support to carry out the research from NZITP and Southern Institute of Technology.


6



Project

7CONTENTS

PREFACE 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 6

TABLE OF CONTENTS 7

LIST OF TABLES 8

LIST OF FIGURES 8

1. INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT 10

1.1 THE STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT12

1.2 METHODOLOGY 13

1.2.1 Research ethics 14

1.3 LITERATURE REVIEW 15

1.3.1 Definitions and models 15

1.3.2 Defining ‘deep collaboration’ 16

1.3.3 Context for inter-organisational collaboration 18

1.3.4 Summary 19

2. ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRES 20

2.1 NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PARTNER ORGANISATIONS IN COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIPS 21

2.2 RANGE OF EXTERNAL COLLABORATION PARTNERS 21

2.3 LOCATION OF EXTERNAL COLLABORATION PARTNERS 23

2.4 THE GENERAL PURPOSES OF COLLABORATING 24

2.5 THE MOTIVATIONS FOR ESTABLISHING COLLABORATIONS25

2.6 STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENT OF COLLABORATIONS 26

2.7 FACTORS DETERMINING THE CHOICE OF COLLABORATION PARTNERS 27

2.8 COMMUNICATION WITH COLLABORATION PARTNERS 28

2.9 PERCEPTIONS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COLLABORATION PROCESSES 29

2.10 PERCEPTIONS OF THE SUCCESS OF COLLABORATIONS 31

2.11 GENERAL IMPACTS OF WORKING IN COLLABORATION 32

2.12 CHALLENGES TO COLLABORATING WITH OUTSIDE ORGANISATIONS 33

2.12.1 Resourcing challenges 33

2.12.2 Structural challenges 34

2.12.3 Environmental challenges 34

2.13 ELEMENTS THAT MAKE IT EASY TO COLLABORATE WITH OUTSIDE ORGANISATIONS. 35

2.14 GENERAL COMMENTS ON COLLABORATION 37

2.15 SUMMARY 39

3. ANALYSIS OF CASE STUDY INTERVIEWS 41

3.1 IMPROVING OUTCOMES FOR STAKEHOLDERS 42

3.1.1 The benefits of research collaborations 42

3.1.2 Supporting student learning 44

3.1.3 Engaging with communities 44

3.2 IMPROVING OPERATING EFFICIENCY 48

3.2.1 Efficiency of resource use 48

3.2.2 TEO collaborations for efficiency 50

3.3 ESTABLISHING COLLABORATIVE ARRANGEMENTS 52

3.3.1 Choosing the right partners 52

3.3.2 Establishing a unified goal 54

3.3.3 Developing trust 55

3.3.4 Governance and structure 55

3.3.5 Institutional commitment to collaboration 56

3.3.6 Defining roles and leadership 57

3.3.7 Connecting face to face 58

3.4 MAINTAINING AND MANAGING COLLABORATIONS 60

3.4.1 Sustaining relationships over time60

3.4.2 Managing challenges and conflict 62

3.4.3 The importance of continuous communication 63

3.5 SUMMARY 66

4. VIGNETTES 67

5. DISCUSSION AND KEY FINDINGS 76

5.1 DISCUSSION 77

5.1.1 The benefits of collaborative ways of working 77

5.1.2 Resourcing and supporting collaboration 78

5.1.3 Challenges to collaboration 78

5.2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: WHAT MAKES FOR SUCCESSFUL ITP SECTOR COLLABORATION? 79

5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH 81

REFERENCES 82

APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE 86



Project

7


8

LIST OF TABLESTABLE 1: Number of partners 21

LIST OF FIGURESFIGURE 1: ITP collaboration partners 22

FIGURE 2: Location of external collaboration partners 23

FIGURE 3: Main purpose of collaboration projects 24

FIGURE 4: Motivations for establishing collaborative projects 25

FIGURE 5: Formality of collaboration structure 26

FIGURE 6: Factors determining the choice of collaboration partners 27

FIGURE 7: Modes of communication with collaboration partners 28

FIGURE 8: Effectiveness of collaboration 29

FIGURE 9: Perceptions of the collaboration process 30

FIGURE 10: Success of collaborations 31

FIGURE 11: Post-collaboration changes 32

FIGURE 12: Challenges to collaborating 33

FIGURE 13: What makes collaborating easy? 35



Project

9

Collaborations are time consuming, they are quite stressful - so they absolutely have to build on high trust relationships that you have to spend time on.


1010

“Coming together is a beginning; keeping together is progress; working together is success.”– Henry Ford

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

1



Project

11

The ITP Sector Collaboration Practices Project is a joint research project supported by NZITP and Southern Institute of Technology. The key purpose of the project is to evaluate what makes for successful collaborations that bring mutual benefits to partners, with a particular focus on collaboration between ITPs. It explores the ways in which ITPs collaborate with each other, as well as with other stakeholders, to: enhance the quality of teaching and learning, share knowledge and stimulate creativity, and increase efficiency in the use of resources.

Collaboration between ITPs and with outside stakeholders is an integral part of the way that ITPs do business. Collaborative ways of working are regarded as beneficial for the ITP sector and to add value for their external stakeholders. The government expects ITPs to work collaboratively with each other, and with other key stakeholders, to improve operating efficiency, meet economic goals and improve learning outcomes for students.

In recent years tertiary education policy in New Zealand increasing has moved from an emphasis on competition to support for collaboration between TEOs and with external stakeholders (Corich, 2006). Collaboration is a focal point in the New Zealand Tertiary Education Strategy 2014-2019 (MoE & MBIE, 2014) which states that the future tertiary education system will need to be “more outward-facing and engaged” with strong links to industry, communities, schools and the global economy (p. 6). In particular it notes that TEOs will need to work more closely with industry and schools in order to enhance knowledge transfer, offer

appropriate access and incentives to gain relevant qualifications and ensure that graduates have the skills that industry needs. It calls on TEOs to: engage with Mãori and Pacifika communities and local organisations and employers; collaborate more closely with each other and with other research organisations and with industry, and develop and maintain international education and research relationships.

The strong emphasis on TEOs engaging with their key stakeholders is reinforced by the Government’s funding framework for 2015-2016 (TEC, 2014) which calls for broad and deep engagement including:

ª working together with employers “in deep, sustained, two-way relationships” (p. 12);

ª providing industry experience to learners and sharing facilities and capital equipment “to the mutual advantage of students, researchers and employees” (p. 13);

ª collaborating with iwi, hapu and wananga to support Mãori educational success;

ª actively engaging with Pasifika learners as well as their families and communities;

ª collaborating with each other and with enterprise to support commercial innovation (p. 18) and with each other, iwi/hapu/whanau and end-users to increase the Matauranga Mãori knowledge base and Mãori research capability (p. 19), and

ª engaging in international education activities that maximise “collaborative impact” and increase their networks, collaboration and joint ventures

with international companies and institutions (p. 20).

The policy emphasis on collaboration was informed by the work of the Tertiary Education Commission (TEC) Collaborating Efficiency Project in 2002-2003 which argued that the effectiveness of tertiary education could be significantly enhanced by “sensible and practical collaboration” in the areas of: shared capital (including collaboration in the purchase and use of fixed assets and sharing spare capacity in TEO assets); library services; entrepreneurial activity (including enhancing opportunities for commercialisation and sharing research and development facilities), and staffing (including improving efficiency in programme development and reducing duplication) (Collaborating Efficiency Project, 2003, p. iii).

People working in ITPs have a great deal of collective experience and wisdom about what makes for successful collaborations. This project has collected and shared those experiences, in order to identify the key factors that make for successful collaboration that benefits ITPs and outside stakeholders. Data was collected from staff at NZITP-member institutions working in inter-organisational projects by way of questionnaires and interviews and the findings are presented in this report. The findings are supported by a number of ‘vignettes’ that showcase a range of indicative collaborative projects in which ITPs play a key role.


12

1.1 THE STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT

This report is organised as follows:

ª Methodology

ª Literature review (including an exploration of the definitions of ‘collaboration’)

ª Analysis of responses to questionnaires distributed to ITP staff involved in collaboration projects

ª Analysis of case study interviews with ITP staff involved in a range of collaborative projects

ª ‘Vignettes’ featuring specific collaborative projects

ª Discussion and summary of findings.

In addition to the literature review section, further literature is also integrated into the analysis of interviews in Section 3. A copy of the questionnaire analysed in Section 2 can be found in Appendix 1.

Each of the case study interviews was given a letter code, for example: (a). Quotations from the different interviews have been distinguished by using these codes. Quotations taken from questionnaires and interviews have been amended for clarity of meaning and to preserve anonymity where necessary.



Project

13

1.2 METHODOLOGY

This project involved three phases:

1. A review of the literature relating to inter-orgnisational collaboration and in particular the factors that support collaborative ways of working.

2. A questionnaire distributed to a variety of staff at ITPs around New Zealand who have been or are currently involved in collaborative projects, including staff in support and management roles.

3. Interviews with staff at a number of ITPs about their experiences in specific collaborative projects with other ITPs or external organisations.

Phase One: Literature review

The literature review focused predominantly on models of inter-organisational collaboration in the public sector, including tertiary institutions, in New Zealand and internationally, particularly the United States where colalborations in the education sector have been encouraged by policy makers and funders. A working definition of collaboration to guide their research was synthesised from the many definitions and models available and findings from the literature review informed the development of the questionnaire and interview questions and data analysis. Findings from the literature have been synthesised and integrated into the relevant sections of the report.

Phase Two: Questionnaires

The purpose of the questionnaire was to gain a picture of the many ways in which ITPs collaborate with outside organisations in order to enhance the quality of teaching and learning, share knowledge and stimulate creativity or increase efficiency in the use of resources. The overall aim was to create a picture of the range and value of the multiple collaborative initiatives ITPs are involved in. Questions were designed to seek information on the range of outside agencies ITPs work with, the different collaboration approaches taken and the ways in which collaborative arrangements are managed. The questionnaire invited participants to provide information about a wide range of collaborative arrangements, from formal (with written contracts or partnership agreements, or joint ventures or research bids) to informal (such as networking, regular information-sharing or cooperation), and from one-off projects to long-standing relationships over months or even years. The focus of the questionnaire was on participant views of specific collaborative arrangements or projects, and each questionnaire that was completed concerned a single collaboration.

Twelve ITPs were approached to take part in the questionnaire phase, and six responded to the request to be involved. Each of the six participating ITPs nominated a contact person whose role it was to distribute the questionnaires to appropriate personnel within the institute. The contact person identified tutors, management and support staff who had been or were currently involved in collaborative arrangements with outside organisations and individuals, distributed the questionnaires in either hard copy or electronic form and, finally, collated hard copy responses


14

and posted them to the researchers.

A total of 147 questionnaires were returned from the participating ITPs. Although this was less than researchers had hoped for, the completed questionnaires provided comprehensive and thoughtful responses and a useful range of indicative data to work with. The original intention had been to provide a ‘stocktake’ of collaborative activity by ITPs; although the response rate was not sufficient to provide a full picture of this activity, it does provide a highly indicative ‘snapshot’ of collaborative activities, attitudes and advice for ITPs.

Phase Three: Interviews

The interview stage of data collection sought to focus on a small number of examples of successful collaborations. All of the 12 ITPs originally approached to take part in Phase One were invited to nominate projects for the interview phase of the project, and six agreed to take part. In most instances the same contact person who facilitated the questionnaire phase was the first point of contact for selecting staff to be interviewed. In some cases direct contact with potential interviewees was made by the researchers, with any decisions endorsed by relevant management teams. The aim was to interview representatives from a broad range of different types of collaborative projects. As with the

questionnaires the focus during the interviews was on ascertaining the experiences of ITP staff taking part in collaborations. No attempt was made to interview members of the various projects external to the participating ITPs.

Each semi-structured interview, guided by a list of open-ended questions and prompts, was conducted by one of three SIT researchers. A total of 23 people were interviewed for an average length of time of approximately 45 minutes. The interviews were recorded on dictaphone and later transcribed.

The interview transcripts were analysed for factors that supported successful collaboration as well as for pitfalls or issues that arose, and the analysis was also informed by the literature review. Interview data also formed the basis of the ‘vignettes’ featuring named institutions and specific projects. These vignettes support the analysis with specific examples of a range of collaborative projects that ITPs are or have recently been engaged in.

1.2.1 Research ethics Ethical approval for this study was granted by the SIT Human Research Ethics Committee. All interview participants were provided with an information sheet giving details about the study. Participants were assured of their anonymity and that

neither they nor the institute that they were representing would be identifiable in any presentation of the data. Quotations taken from questionnaires and interviews have been amended for clarity of meaning and to preserve anonymity where necessary. In the case of the vignettes, participants were asked to give signed consent to the naming of the institution and project. Where participants requested, consent was also obtained from other partners in the collaboration. Participants were provided with a draft text and were able to request any amendments before the vignettes were finalised.



Project

15

1.3 LITERATURE REVIEW

The literature on collaboration is extensive and multidisciplinary, resulting in a wide variety of definitions and models from different theoretical perspectives (Thomson, Perry & Miller, 2007). This project focused on the literature around public sector collaborations including education, community development and national and local government sectors. Within that large and growing body of research, information was sought on the factors that make such inter-organisational collaborations work and how value is created for stakeholders.

This section discusses the range of definitions and models of collaboration that have been drawn on here and examines the broad context for inter-organisational collaboration in the tertiary sector. The concept and attributes of ‘deep collaboration’is also examined: deeply embedded and long term inter-organisational partnerships.

1.3.1 Definitions and modelsOften ‘collaboration’ is not clearly defined in the literature. Thomson et al. (2007) describe collaboration as “a multidimensional, variable construct” (p. 3) of which no “true” definition currently exists (p. 31). This imprecision allows for a whole spectrum of interpretations of the term ranging from narrow to all-ecompassing. Fleishman (2009, p. 32), for example, uses the loose concept of “inter-organisational networks” to look at resource dependency and exchange relationships. Tschirhart, Amezcua and Anker (2009, p. 16) narrow their approach to collaborative arrangements for resource sharing. They distinguish “resource exchange” or “I give and I get”, from “resource sharing” or “I share” (p. 6). A much broader approach to collaboration is contained in the concept of ‘engagement’. Holland and Ramaley (2008) use the term “community engagement” to describe “the collaboration between institutions of higher education and their larger communities for the mutually benefical exchange of knowledge and resources in a context of partnership and reciprocity” (p.34, citing Carnegie, 2006). Paterson et al. (2006), in a report on inter-organisational collaboration by tertiary institutions in New Zealand, defines “effective tertiary engagement” as involving shared goals, reciprocal relationships and regular and meaningful communication in a dynamic process (p. 11).

What does emerge from the literature is that collaboration is a term with both an umbrella meaning (encompassing under which many kinds of arrangements where different people work together with a broadly common purpose) and a more specific meaning (where collaboration falls somewhere in the centre of a continuum of specific categorisations of relationships ranging from informal networking to formally structured partnerships or consortia). ‘Collaboration’ is often defined against other connected terms including: co-operation and co-ordination (Brudney, Cho & Wright, 2009; Czajkowski, 2007; Mattessich, 2003; Shepherd, 2004;), coalitions (Himmelman, 2002), partnerships, communities of practice (Clements & Roberts, 2008), and networking (National Network for Collaboration, 1995). This research draws on the ‘umbrella’ definitions, using ‘collaboration’ as an over-arching term to describe any relationship an


16

ITP has with external organisations to achieve the goals of enhancing teaching and learning, sharing knowledge and stimulating creativity or increasing efficiency of resource use. Such relationships may be with one or more external organisations. They are mutually beneficial and well-defined; are aimed at achieving common goals; have mutual accountability, and involve sharing of resources and rewards (Mattessich, Murray-Close & Monsey, 2001a, p. 4). Here the definition was made as broad as possible to avoid excluding any of the full range of purposeful relationships that participant ITPs had with external stakeholders.

A number of researchers view collaboration as a process rather than a product or outcome, a perspective that has been useful also in informing this project. Thomson et al. (2007), for example, approach collaboration not as an issue of definition but as a process of “collective action” between organisations interacting in order to “construct or modify their collective environment, working rules, and options” (p. 31, drawing on work by Astley & Van de Ven, 1983, p. 251). Amey et al. (2007) argue that a collaboration is a process that should be viewed “as a living system” (p. 7). Their “partnership development model” focuses on the steps necessary for establishing and sustaining collaborative endeavours anywhere along the continuum of relationship types from highly informal to highly formal. They have a very open view of the collaboration education institutions engage in across that continuum, acknowledging that even such a low-key relationship as a community college that allows the local high schools to use its gymnasium is a collaboration that builds good will and that has the potential to inspire future shared ventures (p. 10).

As Kania and Kramer (2013) note, when it comes to resolving complex problems or achieving goals together that are beyond any one individual organisation working alone, the process itself can become the solution. When multiple organisations come together with

the same goal they experience “a heightened level of vigilance that enables participants to collectively see and respond to opportunities that would otherwise have been missed” (para. 15). To be a collaboration a relationship needs to have a number of key process elements as follows: mutual benefits for the partners involved, a shared purpose for coming together, joint ownership of decisions and collective responsibility for the future of the project (Amey et al., 2007; Gray, 1989; O’Leary, et al., 2009). When organisations collaborate they experience “mutually beneficial interpendencies” or what Thomson, Perry and Miller (2007, p. 5) call “mutuality”. O’Leary, Gazley, McGuire and Bingham (2009) state that collaboration means “to co-labour, to achieve common goals” (p. 3) and emphasise the need for reciprocity in the relationship. Collaboration is “co-operative behaviour between two or more entities focused upon achieving a particular objective, set of objectives or ensuring a mutually beneficial relationship” (Humanitarian Futures Programme (HFP) & International Council of Voluntary Agencies (IVCA), n.d., p. 3).

Collaboration is more than an accidental or totally unstructured event, or mere socialising. It involves actively identifying a problem to be resolved and setting a clear goal or purpose for collaborating. A degree of intentionality and organisation is implied in setting up and maintaining the collaborative process over its lifespan, whether that is a one-day event or a long-term partnership extending over months or years. Collaboration achieves something that cannot be done so effectively or efficiently by each organisation acting alone. Each partner brings different perspectives and resources to the process which offers new opportunities and offers alternative solutions to issues (Thomson, Perry & Miller, 2007, p. 3). A collaboration also implies collective responsibility for decisions made and actions taken (Merchant, 2011).

The concept of collaboration as a process also allows for divergence

that may arise when a number of individuals representing different viewpoints attempts to work together. Some authors argue that, for collaboration to occur, the partners must have not only a common goal and receive mutual benfits, but also share cultural norms or common philosophies (Thomson, Perry & Miller, 2007). In contrast to this perspective Amey et al. (2007) take the point of view that collaboration “transforms adversarial interaction into a mutual search for information and for solutions that allow all those participating to insure that their interests are represented” (p. 7). Merchant (2011) states outright that collaboration “is not easy, or even nice”, and that it makes demands on participants to compromise and share information. “Collaboration is about the friction of ideas and the forging of new ways of working” (para. 9) and therefore the term does not necessarily equate to “teamwork” or “democractic exchange”. “The goal isn’t about feeling good; it is about business results” and as such requires both leadership and fellowship for effective decision-making even in times of conflict (Merchant, 2011, para. 10). The key point however is that a successful collaborative process allows for the resolution of differences within a cohensive group with a unified goal.

1.3.2 Defining ‘deep collaboration’The data for this project draws on practioner experiences of a wide range of collaboration types, taking in the full sweep from formal, legally constituted partnerships to networks and similar informal associations. At the same time the factors that support ‘deep collaboration’ are described here: deeply embedded and long term inter-organisational partnerships between ITPs and external partners. Such collaborative arrangements are envisaged by the government in its call for deep engagement including “deep, sustained, two-way relationships” (TEC, 2014, p. 12) with industry, including sharing of fixed assets, capital equipment, library resources



Project

17

and staff (including improving efficiency in programme development and reducing duplication), in addition to collaboration to support commercial innovation and deeper engagement with Mãori and Pasifika communities (Collaborating Efficiency Project, 2003).

A deep collaboration is more than the sum of its component organisations. It is not just a collective of a number of different organisations pushed together but a new entity with a common mission and goals that are unique to that partnership (Brown, 2005). Himmelman’s definition of collaboration as “a relationship in which each organization wants to help its partners become the best that they can be at what they do” (2002, p. 3) is also helpful in emphasising the mutuality of a deeply collaborative relationship. He notes that when organisations are collaborating they are sharing the risks, responsibilities and rewards in a mutually beneficial process where each organisation enhances the capacity of partner organisations to achieve a common purpose (p. 3).

Such arrangements can become ‘institutionalised’, that is, they are not dependent on specific individuals from each organisation and they have long-term sustainability beyond changes in members or environmental and political contexts. Deep collaborations are not necessarily highly structured or formalised structures but they do share a number of distinct characteristics in addition to the key processes of collaboration discussed above. These include:

ª interdependence of stakeholders (to the extent of forming a new entity with a common mission and goals that are unique to that collaborative arrangement);

ª collective responsibility for the future of the collaborative arrangement;

ª shared understanding of, and commitment to, building the power and capacity of stakeholders;

ª increased trust and mutual respect among partner organisations over time;

ª high levels of communication, both formal and informal, among partners, and

ª are mutually reinforcing experiences for partners (Brown, 2005; Gray, 1989, cited in O’Leary et al., 2009; Kania & Kramer, 2011; Nye et al., 2005).

Deep collaborations are well suited to tackle complex and interdependent issues that no single organisation can resolve. These are what Kania and Kramer (2011, n.p.) refer to as “adaptive problems”: complex issues where the answer may not be known in advance and where stakeholders must change their own behaviour in order to create a solution (as compared with “technical problems” where the problem is well defined, the answer is known in advance and one or a few organisations have the ability to implement a solution).

The literature around “collective impact” is useful in defining deep collaboration. Collective impact emerged in the United States as an effective way of resolving complex social issues, which relies on the commitment of a group of key stakeholders from different sectors to a common agenda for solving a specific social problem that no single organisation could accomplish on its own (Kania & Kramer, 2011, n.p.).

Kania and Kramer (2011) identify five conditions of collective success for such projects:

1. a common understanding of the problem and a mutually agreed process for resolving it;

2. a shared measurement system for reporting on success of the project, which allows participants to hold each other accountable and learn from each other;

3. mutually reinforcing activities, where each participant organisation does what it does best in a way that supports a mutually

reinforcing plan of action;

4. continuous communication to allow participants to develop understanding of and trust in each other and to appreciate the common motivation behind their different efforts, and

5. backbone support organisation to provide support and coordination for the project that takes the burden for this off individual organisations.

Deeply collaborative arrangements are “long-term and patient relationships that have institutional continuity” that often move “from smaller to larger projects, from a few activities to many, and from distant to more trusting and cooperative forms with time” (Nye et al., 2005, p. 23). Participants in research into successful collaboration by Brown (2005) described “a synergy that is hard to define and quantify” in their collaborative arrangements, produced by “the mutually altruistic desire to achieve goals for the good of their community” (p. 8). Where commitment to achieving mutual goals was high, barriers such as lack of time and resources were consistently overcome and the collaborations could weather changes in membership as well as wider socio-political changes. Other key elements in establishing and maintaining deep collaborative arrangements are ensuring the right level of “backbone” or administrative support and resourcing, and ensuring that the appropriate levels of management in each organisation are involved (Turner et al., 2012a; Patscheke et al., 2014). Kania and Kramer (2011) also note the importance of a highly structured decision-making process and a backbone support organisation: “the expectation that collaboration can occur without a supporting infrastructure is one of the most frequent reasons why it fails” (n.p.).


18

1.3.3 Context for inter-organisational collaborationThere are a variety of reasons why a tertiary institution would seek to collaborate with external organisations including: the traditional community service ethic integral to the operation of many educational institutions; access to scarce resources or external funding; influencing the development of national policy or curricula; carrying out research; developing commercial products, or in response to external pressures such as government directives or cost control pressures (Alselem, 2010; Brown, 2004; Czajkowski, 2007). Personal relationships are another key catalyst for collaboration, where individuals from one institution decides to work with individuals from other organisations in order to share skills or strengthen common interests (Amey et al., 2007).

Collaboration has been shown to be linked to improved student outcomes (Collaborating Efficiency Project, 2003) and the goal of enhanced student learning often motivates collaborative arrangements, for example developing frameworks for cooperative work experience or joint efforts to support the transition to higher education (Amey et al., 2007). Collective actions between tertiary institutions and their local communities have also been shown to have benefits for those stakeholders directly involved as well as impacting on community wellbeing, and on local and regional economies (Brownlow, 2012).

Collaboration is also seen as an inevitable response in the face of complex goals such as raising national educational achievement or reducing poverty. Internationally policy makers and funding agencies increasingly require organisations to show they are working collaboratively “based on the assumption that collaborating in a networked environment is advantageous for achieving complex policy goals” (Thomson, Perry & Miller, 2007, p. 2).

Educationalist and commentator Stuart Middleton recently called for “real partnership” between tertiary institutes and employers in order to support graduates into work (Middleton, 2014a, para. 7). He urged those in the education sector to develop relationships based not solely on economic grounds but on “something much more valuable, long-lasting and precious”: knowledge and social responsibility.

Simply knowing employers, being able to call on their support and regarding them as friends of the institution just doesn’t cut it! What is called for is a deep and enduring relationship that requires both an effort at development, a bigger effort in maintaining, and a genuine partnership in the contributions of both the provider and the employer in the successful induction of the novice into the career. (Middleton, 2014a, para. 4).

While there has not yet been a great deal of discussion about the challenges of leading and managing collaborations in the tertiary sector (Debowki, 2008), greater collaboration between teaching institutions, and between institutions and organisations in their wider communities, is an international trend in higher education (Amy, Eddy & Ozaki, 2007; Thomson, et al., 2007). According to Debowski (2008): “community and collaboration underpin many aspects of our sectoral activities. Teaching and research both aim to build connections between learners, colleagues, compatriots and potential partners. The major outcomes of tertiary education are to promote learning and social communities” (p. 42).

The availability of modern communication technologies is making it increasingly easy and cost-effective to collaborate with other ITPs and organisations. Internet technologies and improved connectivity are explored by Karamat and Petrova (2009) in their paper on collaboration in online course delivery between The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand and Auckland University of

Technology. They comment on the opportunities offered by information and communications technologies to improve “the horizontal bonds” between institutions in a world where “common interests and experience, and shared pursuits rather than proximity bind stakeholders together” (p. 57). The potential for ongoing growth in online collaboration is also reflected in teaching and learning models based on advanced network technologies such as the Kiwi Advanced Research and Education Network (KAREN). This network provides ultra high-speed connectivity between universities and many ITPs in New Zealand, and research organisations, libraries, school and museums, and it also connects these organisations to similar networks overseas, further widening opportunities for collaboration in research and teaching (Karamat & Petrova, 2009).

Karamat and Petrova (2009) also comment on how a growing pressure on tertiary teachers to access expertise from beyond the walls of their institutes is increasing the need for collaborations between ITPs and external organisations. Tutors need continually to update their own knowledge to enable their students to keep up with developments within each field.

There are also a growing number of examples of collaborations between tertiary institutions to develop and delivery teaching programmes. Chinlund et al. (2011), for example, describe an initiative in which three Wellington TEOs have developed a joint degree preparatory programme that meets entry criteria to institutes across the region (p. ii). This initiative responds to current policy focus on aligning programmes and collectively supporting student success. The Ako Aotearoa online resource bank provides information about various successful collaborative projects undertaken between ITPs, and also with ITPs and universities, many of them funded or facilitated by Ako Aotearoa. There has been an increasing interest in evaluating tertiary collaborations, one key example being the work by Honeyfield



Project

19

et al. (2010). They evaluated the collaborative process involved in producing Signposts, a resource for new tertiary tutors that was produced by a team of researchers from three different ITPs working together. In addition to the online resource the team produced guidelines for future ITP research collaborations based on their collective experience. As these various examples demonstrate collaboration between ITPs in programme content and delivery does not necessarily mean standardisation or the undermining of institutional individuality or viability. Chinlund et al. (2011) argue that, within a collaborative culture, institutional values, perspectives and philosophies must be respected.

New collaborative ventures involving ITPs are announced all the time. To mention just a few recent examples, ITPs are: collaborating with Chinese and other international educational institutions; setting up public-private partnerships to support regional educational goals; joining regional consortia with universities, businesses and local government to promote regional economic development; appointing a single chief executive across two ITPs, and partnering in local community chariable trusts1. It is within this larger context of outward-reaching initiatives and partnerships by the tertiary sector, therefore, that the ITP Sector Collaboration Practices Project was developed in order to share the collaboration experiences of ITP practitioners.

1.3.4 SummaryFor the purposes of this research “collaboration” refers to any relationship an ITP has with external organisations to achieve the goals of enhancing teaching and learning, sharing knowledge and stimulating creativity or increasing efficiency of resource use. Such relationships may be with one or more external organisations. Drawing on the literature discussed above, a collaborative relationship needs to have a number of key attributes. A collaboration:

ª is mutually beneficial;

ª is aimed at achieving a common goal or shared purpose;

ª involves the sharing of resources and joint decision-making;

ª relies on collective responsibility, and

ª offers mutual benefits for partners.

Collaboration is a process rather than an end in itself, although the process aims at achieving a common goal or shared purpose. The process of collaborating – or “co-labouring” – in order to achieve common goals implies reprocity and mutually beneficial interdependencies that allow a number of organisations to come together to achieve goals that are beyond any one organisation working alone.

The definition of “collaboration” here is very broad so as to embrace the full range of relationships ITPs have with external stakeholders from formal, legally constituted partnerships to networks and similar informal associations. The factors that support ‘deep collaboration’ are discussed here: deeply embedded and long term inter-organisational partnerships between ITPs and external partners. In addition to the key characteristics of collaboration in general, “deep collaboration” involves the creation of a new entity with a common mission and unique goals, in which each organisation enhances the capacity of its partner organisations to achieve these goals. Such relationships are typically long-term and can adapt to changes in individual membership or in the political climate.

In the following sections data collected from a variety of staff at nine ITPs around New Zealand, in the form of questionnaires and interviews is analysed. The analysis is informed by the discussion of literature around the definition and context of inter-organisational collaboration.

1 Further information on these examples can be found at: http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/article/?id=40757; https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/26560573/qingdao-delegation-to-visit-dunedin/; http://www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/66979462/Reese-Trip-to-China-is-good-for-Nelson; https://www.weltec.ac.nz/ABOUTWELTEC/NewsandEvents2015/tabid/1596/aid/9/Default.aspx; https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/26607191/autex-announces-support-for-the-lowie-foundation/;


20

ANALYSIS OF QUESTIONNAIRES

2

This section of the report presents the results of the questionnaire stage of the project. Questions were

designed to seek information on the range of outside agencies ITPs work with, the different collaboration approaches taken and the ways in which collaborative arrangements are managed. The focus of the questionnaire was on participant views of specific collaborative arrangements or projects, and each

questionnaire that was completed concerned a single collaboration. The purpose of asking participants to respond in relation to a single project was twofold: to learn about experiences directly related to unique and specific collaborating ventures rather than elicit broad opinions about collaborating in general and, collectively, to provide a picture of the extensive range of collaborative projects the participating ITPs were involved in.

Questionnaires were completed on 147 distinct collaborations, each between an ITP and one or more external partners. The results are presented as graphs and tables in the order in which they appeared on the questionnaire. Analysis takes place alongside presentation of the results. A copy of the questionnaire can be found in Appendix 1.



Project

21

2.1NUMBER OF DIFFERENT PARTNER ORGANISATIONS IN COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIPS

Participants were asked to indicate the number of external partners involved in their collaborative projects, choosing from a range as indicated in the table below.

Table 1: Number of partners

Number of collaboration partners

Count Percentage

2 56 38%

3 - 5 29 20%

6 - 10 28 19%

More than 10 34 23%

Total 147 100%

The greatest number of collaborations – 38% – involved ITPs working with only one or two outside partners. There was only a small variation in the other ranges of partner numbers offered. Interestingly, the next most common type of partnerships involved ITPs working with 10 or more external partners, followed very closely by partnerships involving three to five external partners, and those involving six to 10 external partners.

2.2RANGE OF EXTERNAL COLLABORATION PARTNERS

In addition to the numbers of different collaboration partners institutes worked with, information was sought on the types of partner organisations. As can be seen in Figure 1 the most common collaboration partners were other ITPs, with 48 respondents (or 32%) indicating that their projects involved collaborating with another polytechnic or institute of technology. Local businesses and non-profit organisations also feature prominently among external collaboration partners, at 44 (29%) and 37 (25%) respectively.

The data shows that ITPs were less likely to partner with the university sector (17, or 11%) and much less likely to partner with wananga (six, or three percent). Only one respondent indicated a partnership with post-graduate students or alumni within New Zealand and there were no collaboration partnerships with post-graduates or alumni outside of New Zealand. Eleven respondents chose ‘other’ and specified a range of organisations including health boards, professional and regulatory bodies and a radio station.


22

Figure 1: ITP collaboration partners

0 10 20 30 40 50

Another polytechnic or institute of technology

Local business

Non-profit organisation or trust

Secondary school sector

Other central government department/agency

Local government

National business

Industry Training Organisation

Iwi representatives or group

University

Manufacturing and/or services sector

Private Training Organisation

Other

Other sector advocate (e.g. Federated Farmers)

Business sector advocate

Wananga

Sports trust or club

Early childhood sector

Church/Religious Group

Primary school sector

Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

Post-graduate/alumni within New Zealand

Post-graduate/alumni outside New Zealand

Number of collaboraton partners by sector/ type



Project

23

2.3 LOCATION OF EXTERNAL COLLABORATION PARTNERS

Respondents indicated a wide geographical spread of collaboration partners around New Zealand. From the percentage graph below it can be seen that ITPs were most likely to partner with local organisations, with 55% of collaboration partners coming from within the same town or city. At the same time ITPs were almost as likely to partner with organisations located outside of their regions as they were to partner with local organisations. Significantly, ITPs were more likely to collaborate with partners outside their regions than with partners within the same regions as their institutes. Only seven respondents (5%) indicated that their partners were located outside of New Zealand. Of these seven, five had international partners in Asia (China, Hong Kong, Inner Mongolia and Nepal) and the remaining two had Australian partners.

Figure 2: Location of external collaboration partners

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Local

(same town or city as ITP)

Regional

(same region as ITP)

National

(within New Zealand but outside region of ITP)

International

Num

ber

Location of Partners


24

2.4 THE GENERAL PURPOSES OF COLLABORATING

Respondents were asked to indicate the main purpose of their collaborative project from the point of view of their ITPs. They were required to choose between three options: enhancing the quality of teaching and learning; sharing knowledge and increasing creativity, or increasing efficiency in the use of resources at their institutes. The aim of this question was to gain a general picture of the key value that ITPs gain in participating in collaborative projects. As can be seen the primary purpose for collaborations is very evenly spread across all three options, with almost as many projects aimed at increasing efficiency, creativity and knowledge-sharing as there are collaborations for the purposes of enhancing the quality of teaching and learning.

The data on the main purpose of collaboration was also analysed by type of external collaboration partners where the numbers in each type were sufficient for statistic validity. This exercise shows that the purpose of the majority (47%) of collaborations ITPs undertook with another ITP was to increase the efficiency of resource use. The same purpose motivated 50% of collaborations with private training organisations.

The main purpose of collaborations with universities was identified as enhancing the quality of teaching and learning at the ITP, with 40% of respondents identifying that option. At 47% this was also identified as the main motivating purpose for collaborations with industry training organisations, and it was also identified as the main purpose for collaborations with local government (50%), local businesses (57%) and iwi (53%). Sharing knowledge and increasing creativity at the ITPs was identified as the main purpose of collaborations with the manufacturing and services sectors (54%), the secondary school sector (56%) and non-profit organisations or trusts (49%).

Collaborations with national businesses were divided between enhancing the quality of teaching and learning (42%) and sharing knowledge and increasing creativity (42%) at the ITPs. Responses on the main purpose of collaborations with central government departments/agencies were fairly evenly divided across the three options, with 35% of respondents identifying sharing knowledge and increasing creativity and another 35% identifying increasing the efficiency of resource use at the ITPs as the primary purposes.

Figure 3: Main purpose of collaboration projects

31.91% 38.30%

29.79%

Its purpose is to enhance the quality of teaching and learning at my institution.

Its purpose is to share knowledge and increase creativity at my institution.

Its purpose is to increase efficiency of resources at my institution.



Project

25

Figure 4: Motivations for establishing collaborative projects

2.5 THE MOTIVATIONS FOR ESTABLISHINGCOLLABORATIONS

Respondents were also asked to choose from a more finely graded list of options in order to seek specific information on the motivations for establishing collaborative projects. Unlike the question on the main purpose of collaboration, this question allowed respondents to choose as many options as were applicable.

As Figure 4 shows, respondents saw their collaborative projects as very important in building relationships for intended future collaborations. Over 60% of respondents identified this as one of their main motivations for establishing their collaborative projects. This was followed in importance by student learning and/or employment training, which was identified as a main motivating factor by 50% of respondents. This indicates the high value ITPs place on seeking and supporting collaborative arrangements with external partners, and the link they make between collaborative projects and student success.

Other important motivations for establishing collaborative projects were: increasing institutional credibility (43%); increasing student numbers (37%), and marketing and profile-raising for the ITP (36%). Of much less importance in establishing collaborative projects were the need to share liability or to avoid or resolve conflicts with external partners (2%). Reducing transaction costs and seeking funding or investment were also only minor motivations for establishing collaborations, at 7% and 8% respectively. This is despite the main purpose of many collaboration projects being identified in the previous question as to increase efficiency in the use of resources at ITPs. This would seem to indicate a wide interpretation of what can be taken as an effort to increase efficiency, beyond just seeking funding or reducing transaction costs.

Twenty-one respondents specified other motivations for collaborating beyond the options provided, including:

ª meeting industry training needs (5);

ª cost saving (4);

ª providing industry training (2);

ª covering staff/facility shortages (2);

ª research (1);

ª benchmarking (1), and

ª aligning ITP and community needs (1).

Building relationship for intended future collaborations

Increasing student numbers

Seeking external skills, expertise and/or equipment

Sharing of good practice with other tertiary providers

Staff training or professional development

Marketing and profile raising for the outside partner(s)

Student learning and /or employment training

Marketing and profile raising by my institute

Improved student retention and completion

Participation in inter-agency education/management group

Ensuring input into external decision making

Seeking funding or investment

Conflict avoidance or resolution

Increasing institutional credibility

Community service and.or outreach by my institute

To meet governmental or formal institutional requirements

Other

Resolving teaching or learning issues

Reducing transaction costs

Sharing liability

Mot

ivat

ion


26

2.6 STRUCTURAL ARRANGEMENT OF COLLABORATIONS

As discussed earlier collaborations can range from very informal arrangements (such as casual networking groups without any structured procedures or specified leadership), through to highly formal partnerships underpinned by legally binding agreements. The questionnaire asked participants to identify the degree of formality of the particular collaborative projects they were involved in. They were asked to select the degree of formality on a numbered scale from 1 (very informal, with no signed agreement and ‘low key’ or no leadership) through to 6 (very formal, with a legally binding partnership agreement, signed by top management).

The range of responses is displayed in Figure 5. It shows that the greater proportion of respondents were involved in collaborations with formal structures. Twenty-eight percent (41) respondents indicated they were involved in collaborations that were underpinned by very formal arrangements such as legally binding partnership agreements, and a further 20% (29) were involved in quite formal arrangements. Only 8% or 12 respondents indicated projects that were very informal, although 17% (25) were involved in collaborations that were quite informal. When the numbers choosing options 3 and 4 are combined, it can be seen that 26% of collaborative arrangements fall into the ‘middle ground’ where collaborative arrangements are neither strongly formal nor very informal.

A comparison was made between the formality of the structure of collaborations and the main motivations for establishing collaborations. This comparison was carried out for the top five main motivations as selected by respondents. Where a major motivation for establishing a collaboration was for building relationships for intended future collaboration with those external partners, the arrangement was as likely to be very formal or quite formal, as it was to be very informal or quite informal. Where student learning and/or employment training was a major motivation for establishing a collaboration, the arrangement was slightly more likely to be very formal or quite formal, than it was very informal or quite informal. Collaborations with a key motivation of increasing institutional credibility tended more towards the moderate and formal end of the spectrum, as did those with a key motivation of increasing student numbers. Where the main motivation was identified as ITP marketing and profile-raising the range of collaborative arrangements was spread fairly evenly over the full range of options from very informal to very formal.

A comparison of formality of the structure of collaborations with the type of collaboration partners involved showed that, in our sample, collaborations between respondent ITPs and other ITPs were much more likely to be quite formal or very formal. Collaborations with universities, private training organisations, government departments, iwi groups and non-profit organisations or trusts were also more likely to be structured quite formally or very formally. Collaborations with local government, national businesses and the secondary school sector were as likely to be fairly informal as they were to be fairly or highly formal. In contrast, collaborations with local businesses and the manufacturing and services sectors were most likely to be fairly informal.

Figure 5: Formality of collaboration structure30%

20%

10%

0%1 Very informal

2 3 4 5 6 Very formal

Level of formality



Project

27

2.7 FACTORS DETERMINING THE CHOICE OF COLLABORATION PARTNERS

This question sought to determine the most important factors for ITPs when choosing external collaboration partners. Respondents rated the importance of each factor on a Likert-type scale from “not important at all” to “very important”. They were also given a “don’t know/not applicable” option.

As can be seen in Figure 6, enhancing the reputation of the ITP was the most important factor determining the choice of collaboration partners (61%), followed closely by sharing a common vision or purpose (58%). Prior successful collaborations (52%) and the need to access particular expertise or equipment (51% and 49% respectively) were also important in governing partner choice. Interestingly, having a prior established relationship with a partner was not as important as these other factors; 33% indicated that this was very important in their choice of collaboration partners.

Most respondents felt that they had some choice in collaboration partners, as indicated by the high number (38%) who indicated that being unable to find alternative partners was not an important factor in partner choice, and by the fact that 50% of respondents either did not know or did not consider this issue was applicable in the case of their projects. The need to work with particular partners so as to secure funding was also relatively unimportant in choosing collaborators; 36% of respondents indicated this was not at all important, while a further 31% either did not know or did not consider this issue applicable in the case of their projects.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

To enhance our institute’s reputation by working with this partner/these partners

The partner(s) shares a common vision/purpose with our institute.

We have successfully collaborated with the partner(s) in the past.

The partner(s) has contacts and/or expertise we wanted to access.

The need to access particular equipment or specialised expertise that the

partner(s) has.

An individual at our institution has an established relationship with the

partner(s).

To meet Central Government requirements.

We need to work with this partner/s to secure funding.

To meet specific cultural or linguistic needs.

We could find no other alternative partner(s).

Fact

ors

Figure 6: Factors determining the choice of collaboration partners

Don’t know/ Not applicable Not important at all Of little importance

Of some importance Very important


28

2.8 COMMUNICATION WITH COLLABORATION PARTNERS

Respondents were asked to indicate the main ways in which they communicated with their collaboration partners. They were asked to choose up to three of the most frequent modes of communication. The results are shown in Figure 7. Although caution must be exercised in drawing conclusions from the number of projects represented here, the data shows a clear reliance on more traditional methods of communication (particularly emails, followed by telephone and face to face communication). There was only limited use of group video conferencing or interactive cloud communication methods.

Figure 7: Modes of communication with collaboration partners

Email

Phone calls

Face to face (e.g. meetings)

Postal mail

Text messages

Skype or similar internet call

Social media (e.g Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter)

Other online methods (e.g. Forums, Wikis, Cloud)

Fax

Com

mni

cati

on m

odes

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

1%

1%

4%

3%

9%

14%

74%

74%

93%



Project

29

2.9PERCEPTIONS OF THE EFFECTIVENESS OF COLLABORATION PROCESSES

Respondents were also asked to make a judgement on the overall effectiveness of collaborative projects in achieving intended goals or outcomes. They were requested to rate the collaboration process for the project they had been involved in across a spectrum ranging from ‘not at all effective’ to ‘highly effective’. As can be seen from Figure 8, the great majority of respondents found their collaborations were effective in achieving their intended goals or outcomes. Fifty-eight percent of respondents indicated that collaborations were highly effective in achieving the intended goals or outcomes, and a further 32% indicated that collaborations were effective.

The questionnaire also focused on how participants viewed a range of specific collaborative processes. Participants were presented with a series of process-related questions and asked to give their opinion as to how strongly they agreed or disagreed with each statement, on a scale from ‘1: Disagree’ to ‘3: Agree’. If they did not know or felt that the statement did not apply to their collaborative project participants also had the option to choose ‘4: Not applicable or don’t know’.

Figure 8: Effectiveness of collaboration

Highly effective

Effective

Somewhat effective

Not at all effectiveDeg

ree

of e

ffec

tive

ness

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%


30

As can be seen participants indicated mainly positive opinions about the collaboration process. Most notably, 95% of partipants either agreed or somewhat agreed that their institutions were able to maintain independence while taking part in collaborative projects. Ninety-two percent agreed or somewhat agreed that their institutions did their fair share of the work involved, and 97% agreed or somewhat agreed that all the collaboration partners had a clear sense of their roles and responsibilities. The great majority of participants also either agreed or somewhat agreed that their collaborative arrangements were able to adapt to changing conditions, that all the parties involved shared a clear sense of goal or purpose and that they were the right partners to make the projects work. Most participants also had informal conversations with external collaboration partners outside of formal meetings.

Responses were less positive about the financial and time aspects of the collaboration process. Twenty percent agreed and 21% somewhat agreed that collaborating with outside partners had increased the financial costs of project, while a similar proportion (45%) disagreed with this statement. Thirty-nine percent of participants agreed that collaborating had increased the amount of time spent on the projects, and a further 23% somewhat agreed, whereas only 21% disagreed with this statement. It should be noted that a considerable number of participants responded ‘don’t know or not applicable’ to these statements: 14% and 18% respectively.

Even where participants agreed or somewhat agreed that collaboration had increased the amount of time spent on their projects, a majority still indicated that these collaborations were effective (19.5%) or highly effective (34.7%) at achieving intended goals. A similar response was evident among participants who agreed or somewhat agreed that collaboration had increased the amount of financial costs of their projects, where 13.2% indicated that the collaborations were effective and 21.5% indicated that the collaborations were highly effective at achieving intended goals. These results would tend to imply that, despite time or financial costs, overall most had found that collaborating had not impacted negatively on the efficiency or ease of completing projects, or that the outcomes were worth the time and costs.

80% 100%

My institution is able to maintain its independence even while taking part in

this collaboration.

I find that my institution does its fair share of the work involved in this

collaboration.

This collaboration is able to adapt to changing conditions.

Overall the partners have a clear sense of their roles and responsibilities.

Overall the partners have a clear shared goal or purpose.

I personally have informal conversations about this collaboration with at least

some of the outside partners.

The external partners of this collaboration are the right ones to make

the project work.

There is a clear process for making decisions among the partners.

Collaborating with outside partners has increased the amount of time spent on

this project/arrangement.

Collaborating with outside partners has increased the financial costs of the

project/arrangement.

0% 20% 40% 60%

Opi

nion

sta

tem

ents

Figure 9: Perceptions of the collaboration process

Disagree Somewhat agree Agree Don’t Know/NA



Project

31

2.10 PERCEPTIONS OF THE SUCCESS OF COLLABORATIONS

Another aim was to learn about how successful participants felt their collaborations were at achieving a range of goals. These goals were presented in the form of a series of opinion statements on a scale from ‘1: Disagree’ to ‘3: Agree’. If they did not know or felt that the statement did not apply to their collaborative project participants also had the option to choose ‘4: Not applicable or don’t know’.

From the responses shown it can be seen that questionnaire participants generally considered their collaboration projects to have been successful. In particular, participants largely agreed that they would recommend their colleagues to get involved in collaborations, with 88% either agreeing or somewhat agreeing with this statement. No participants disagreed with the statement that they would recommend others to get involved in collaborations. Ninety-one percent of participants agreed or somewhat agreed that their collaborative projects were likely to lead to further collaborations with those external organisations, and similarly positive responses were made to the statements that collaborations had shared knowledge and skills and had increased levels of trust among the partners, with 75% and 72% of participants respectively in agreement with these statements.

Thirty-four percent of participants disagreed with the statement that their collaborative projects had reduced financial costs for their instutitions, although 68% agreed or somewhat agreed that the same collaborations had actually increased operating efficiency at their institutions. From this it can be inferred that participant perception of what constituted an increase in operating efficiency did not necessarily equate to a reduction in financial costs. It should also be noted that a significant number of participants responded ‘don’t know or not applicable’ to these statements: 22% and 30% respectively. 100%

This collaboration has helped reduce competition for

resources.

This collaboration has increased the public profile of my

institution.

I would recommend others at my institution to get involved in

collaborations.

This collaboration is likely to lead to further collaboration

in the future with the outside organisation(s) involved.

This collaboration has increased levels of trust among the

partners involved.

This collaboration has shared knowledge and/or skills among

the partners.

This collaboration has reduced financial costs for my institution.

This collaboration increased operating efficiency at my

institution.

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Opi

nion

sta

tem

ents

Figure 10: Success of collaborations

Disagree Somewhat agree Agree Don’t know/NA


32

2.11GENERAL IMPACTS OF WORKING IN COLLABORATION

To ascertain whether collaborations led to changes in ‘business as usual’ at the participating institutes, participants were asked an open question as to whether working in collaboration had changed how they carried out their jobs. Seventy-seven percent of participants indicated that collaboration had changed how they did their job, or had changed processes at their institutes in some way. These open responses were grouped according to the general areas of change, and Figure 11 shows the aggregated post-collaboration changes indicated by eight or more participants.

As can be seen, the greatest number of responses (23) was around changes to teaching practice that resulted from contact with external stakeholders through the process of the collaboration. Participants noted that the collaboration had: informed their classroom teaching or improved their technical knowledge and skills; enabled them to remain current with new ideas in the industry, and enabled them to align their teaching with employer needs and expectations. The second greatest number of responses (16) related to ongoing changes in administration practices that had led to more efficient use of resources including time and money. Specific examples included: reductions in the amount of time seeking resources or decisions; changes to spending priorities; improved data accuracy, and changes to administration processes that had reduced the incidence of delays or errors.

Other responses included: changes to the participants’ work role or practices (7); more open relationships with external partners (7); changed assessments, curriculum and/or timetabling (5); led to an ongoing or more effective influence of participants or institutes (4), improved access to stakeholders (for example for student placements); increased access to services and/or equipment for the institute (2), and changes in marketing practices (2). One respondent found that the collaboration project itself was sufficiently time-consuming to change other workplace priorities, and one found that the project had led to a compromise in previous standards of education delivery.

Figure 11: Post-collaboration changesInfluenced teaching through greater awareness

of employer/stakeholder needs

Improved efficiency of resourse use and/or adminstration of processes

Improved awareness of stakeholder issues and needs

Improved student transition to employment

Informed classroom teaching

Enhanced professional development or job satisfaction

Participant more inclined to take up further collaborations

Rep

onse

s

0 5 10 15 20 25



Project

33

2.12 CHALLENGES TO COLLABORATING WITH OUTSIDE ORGANISATIONS

Participants were asked an open-ended question about the main challenges they had found to working in collaborative projects with outside organisations, with the opportunity to list up to three challenges. One hundred and thirty participants identified at least one challenge, 78 identified at least two challenges and 43 identified three challenges. A small number took the opportunity to state that they had found no challenges working with outside organisations.

The responses were sorted into categories and were then further grouped into three main themes: resourcing challenges; structural challenges, and environmental challenges. Figure 12 shows the number of responses for each category for challenges identified by six or more participants.

2.12.1 Resourcing challengesThe greatest number of challenges identified relate to resourcing the collaborative process, in particular around time management (43 responses), arranging meeting times that suited all the members of the collaboration (22) and travel time and costs including accommodation for partners who had to travel a long distance (12). Particular challenges around time management included fitting meetings and project deadlines around industry or teaching schedules and finding suitable times to carry out projects that involved students. A number of respondent comments relating to this challenge are quoted below.

There are challenges to realistically resourcing collaborations:

ª It would be good to be able to personally visit the [partner] organisation more often.

ª Having to work to different people’s timeframes and at other organisations’ behest makes things take a lot longer to action.

ª As it is a pilot the time required to work on this project was unknown and it has taken a lot more time than first thought.

ª Different academic calendars can make face to face debate a real challenge.

ª Working with volunteers means they are not always available due to employment commitments.

ª Poor deadlines, busy people makes it a slow labourious process.

Nine participants identified the time taken to establish their collaborative projects as a challenge, although some pointed out that putting in the resources at the outset built trust between partners, thus reducing misunderstandings and saving time later in the process.

Figure 12: Challenges to collaboratingTime to carry out

collaboration project

Arranging meeting times

Travel time and costs

Time taken establishing collaborations

Communication between partners

Determining cost and resource sharing responsibilities

Differences in policies/procedures

Defining vision/purpose of collaboration

Different expectations and demands between partners

Recruiting project partners/participants

‘”Red tape” (including government requirements)

Implementing project goals

Perceived lack of commitment from home institute

Perceived lack of commitment from partner organisation(s)

Unequal collaborative arrangements

Cha

lleng

es

0 10 20 30 40 50

Resourcing challenges

Structural challeges

Environmental challenges


34

It is worth taking the time to establish a good collaborative relationship:

ª Time invested in negotiation and exploring possibilities is significant.

ª Time spent on organising and communicating is challenging at times but is our contribution and the duties are well shared.

ª Considerable time is spent between organisations in arriving at a shared understanding of collaborative arrangements and how they might work.Substantial relationship building is essential.

ª Time taken to ensure all partners are comfortable.

2.12.2 Structural challengesA considerable number of challenges were identified around establishing and structuring collaborative arrangements including: communicating with partner organisations (17 responses); reaching agreement over equitable sharing of costs and resources (15); aligning projects with partners’ differing policies (12) and expectations (11); setting clear goals and timeframes (11), and recruiting suitable project partners or participants (10).

Communication challenges identified included maintaining information flows and the importance for the collaborative process of meeting face to face as often as possible.

Good communication lines are key for a strong a collaborative relationship:

ª Communication needs to be constant.

ª It’s hard to disseminate information.

ª Difficulties in getting timely responses to our emails.

ª Not getting responses to written correspondence.

ª Face to face meetings are an important element.

ª Contact with institutes outside of region (lack of opportunities for face to face contact).

ª Varying information received at different times from different people.

Other challenges highlight difficulties in establishing clear and shared expectations and responsibilities in collaborative arrangements, and identify barriers to achieving equitable division of resources in some circumstances. A number of participants noted difficulties working alongside partners – including other tertiary education organisations – with incompatible funding or procedural structures.

Differences in structure or philosophy and competitive behaviour can undermine collaborative relationships from the outset:

ª Finding a mechanism so both parties can share benefits and risks. There is no mechanism for example to allow EFTs-sharing where both parties are contributing equally.

ª Ambiguity with instructions relating to funding and potential recovery.

ª No guarantee of continuous financial support.

ª The marked differences between university and ITP processes, external approval and regulations…It’s not a level playing field.

ª The different parties with their own desires and agendas.

ª Competition between partners for outcomes.

ª In the past there have been conflicts of personality detracting from objectivity.

ª Not everyone is on the same page.

Working with organisations unfamiliar with the tertiary sector has particular challenges:

ª Institute policies and procedures do not take into account the way our partner does things.

ª Finding a common language or understanding of concepts has been a challenge.

ª Matching their goals, processes and systems to academic content.

ª Working with a “non-academic” organisation can pose challenges around reaching consensus.

2.12.3 Environmental challengesParticipants also identified a range of challenges stemming from wider environmental or contextual issues. The most common issue was the difficulty of working in uncertain, restrictive or apparently contradictory national or international environments (17 responses). Other challenges identified were difficulties in implementing the outcomes or goals of the collaborative projects (9); a perceived lack of staff or management commitment from either the respondents’ institute (7) or from the partner organisation(s) (7), and perceptions that collaborative arrangements are not truly equal (6), for example, that one partner has more power in the relationship or has hidden motives that are not shared with the other partners.

There are challenges in working within constraints imposed by government or by other partners:

ª Sometimes there is a case of the blind leading the blind within an ambiguous tertiary environment.

ª The pressure of looking into the future without knowing the political outlook and the environment in which we will be working.

ª The government saying that we should have pathways and collaborate but the funding model and conditions within tertiary education not supporting or encouraging it.

ª There are budget restraints and contractual agreements that can sometimes prevent more flexibility between parties developing.

ª Meeting government requirements of two countries.

ª Lack of direction from the partner organisation who clearly has an agenda which is still not known to the main focus group.



Project

35

2.13ELEMENTS THAT MAKE IT EASY TO COLLABORATE WITH OUTSIDE ORGANISATIONS

Participants were asked an open-ended question about the main elements that had made it easier for them to work on collaborative projects with outside organisations. Participants were asked to identify up to three elements. One hundred and forty-three participants identified at least one element that made collaboration easy, 90 identified at least two elements and 60 identified three challenges.

The responses were analysed by grouping them into general categories. Figure 13 shows the number of responses for each category for elements identified by six or more participants.

As can be seen, the element identified by the greatest number of participants as making it easy for them to work with outside organisations was a clearly shared goal between all those involved. This was identified as an important element by 39 participants.

Sharing a common purpose is important:

ª All have a very good understanding of what we are trying to achieve.

ª Being focused and on the same page.

ª We all have similar requirements even though we come to them from different directions at times. The end goal is the same.

ª Having a common goal means that all people involved have a general idea of what is wanted.

Not surprisingly another important element was working with cooperative and highly engaged external partners, identified by 34 participants as something that made it easy for them to collaborate. Comments refered to the value of working with external partners who were supportive of the aims of the tertiary teaching sector, and also to the importance of the willingness of students to engage with projects where appropriate.

Getting buy-in from others is central to making collaborations work:

ª Good open support and collaboration between sector organisation.

ª Good support from an industry with high professional standards and a proactive approach.

ª Our partners are passionate about the project.

ª The level of support, understanding and appreciation we get from all involved is phenomenal, allowing us to input our ideas into agendas and programmes.

ª Willingness to share and be open.

ª All members are very supportive of students, staff, programme and institute.

Participants also found that being able to build on existing relationships with external organistions helped make collaborations easy. Thirty-two participants

Figure 13: What makes collaborating easy?

All partners clearly share a common goal

Cooperative/highly engaged partners

Ability to build on existing relationships/prior collaborations

Clear support from ITP management

Obvious mutual benefits from sharing resources

Good communcation between partners

Partners have similar values/compatible ways of working

Clearly established processes and systems

Equal enthusiasm and commitment

Trust between partners

Partner ITPS have shared issues

Clearly established resource sharing arrangements

ITP has credibility with external partners

Full time liaison person/coordinator

Mai

n el

emen

ts

0 10 20 30 40


36

identified this as a key element, including those who noted that their collaborative projects were built on previous successful collaborations with the same partners.

The importance of past relationships:

ª A previous successful relationship with the parties.

ª Good established relationships with external organisations.

ª Having good industry contacts through professional and personal lives.

ª Existing relationships with other tertiary technical staff makes it easier and pleasant to work with them.

Management support from the home ITP was identified by 23 participants as a key element in easing collaborations with external organisations. Types of support mentioned included resourcing of staff and time, flexibility in meeting other working goals and delegating decision-making responsibility to staff.

The role of management in providing support:

ª Being trusted and supported by management to make decisions which are good for our staff and students.

ª I have the complete support and backing of management.

ª Support for time it takes within workload.

ª Support structure within our own organisation to allow one to do this.

ª My [institute] has a great track record of staff development and giving staff scope to take on projects for the good of both themselves and the organisation.

ª Flexibility of my job description to work on this new development – reduction of student contact time.

Other helpful factors identified by a signicant number of participants included the existence of mutual benefits from collaborating including shared resources and a sense that there was no conflict of interest beween parties (identified by 22 participants); ongoing quality communication between partners (identified by 21 participants), and partners having compatible ways of working or shared values (identified by 20 participants). This last element included the importance of working with partners who had high professional standards.

Mutual benefits and respect:

ª Everyone is wanting to learn off each other.

ª In this arrangement, sharing of resources and equity of access are of paramount importance.

ª We are treated as colleagues or friends with something of value to contribute, we feel we gain a lot and they are very appreciative of anything we do to assist.

ª A common respect for both the organisations and the wants and needs of the students.

ª Shared interests and common perception.

ª A shared understanding by both organisations of the complex business that we work in.

ª Common systems, stakeholders, compliance and development requirements.

Informal elements such as trust between partners and enthusiasm and commitment from all those involved were given equal importance with the more formal, structural elements such as having clearly established processes and resource/cost sharing agreements in place within the collaboration.



Project

37

2.14GENERAL COMMENTS ON COLLABORATION

The final question asked participants for any further comments they wished to add about the process of collaborating with external organisations. Sixty-four participants responded, providing a range of comments on the positive benefits of collaboration, and also advice or warnings about problems they had experienced in collaborating.

The most common comments were those reiterating the value of involvement in collaborations for teaching and learning. Some participants stressed that collaborations with outside partners were fundamental to their roles in teaching or service delivery. Collaborations also allowed staff and sometimes students to keep abreast of stakeholder needs, to hone skills and to connect with potential employers. Even where students are not directly involved in projects participants noted the benefits to staff and students from collaborating with external partners.

Benefits for teaching and learning:

ª As an education provider, it is critical that we understand the needs of private industry and the public sector.

ª Collaborating with individuals outside this organisation is vital for both informed teaching and for personal/professional development.

ª Although it required extra time to prepare, it is an essential part of our programme.

ª Students have the benefits of all parties assisting them on their pathway.

ª Collaboration, if undertaken professionally, provides for higher educational standards and greater consistency of training an industry sector based on the actual industry’s needs.

ª I feel that we must all work together to ensure that we all receive the rewards for the students. It shouldn’t matter where the skills are obtained from, just that we as tutors are working to help our students achieve their goals.

ª Sometimes you can become/feel isolated and “bogged down” with the day-to-day stuff so keeping in touch with businesses and getting out there and showing students, what’s actually happening locally can be really refreshing and beneficial for everyone.

Collaborative projects were also seen as helping build goodwill or stakeholder trust in the ITP or acting as a promotion tool with industry and the community. They offered opportunities for professional development and capacity building for ITP staff involved, or to influence external processes and policies that impacted on ITPs. Collaborating with external organisations also provided resources and opportunities beyond those which could be offered by the ITPs working alone, and some reduced time or financial costs. Two participants noted that being part of collaborative projects had


38

encouraged them to become involved in further collaborations.

Gaining rewards from the collaboration process:

ª It has been/is an incredible thing to be involved with and has enabled me to achieve research outcomes way beyond what would have been possible with no collaboration.

ª Reduces the sense of isolation due to geographic location.

ª Collaboration has provided the basis for all interested parties to achieve their desired result including the educational providers, industry, and central government organisations.

ª Collaboration with outside organisations has provided many fine opportunities for our course, saves a lot of money and has built strong working relationships beneficial to both sides.

ª Logistically challenging but rewarding.

Some participants provided advice based on their collaboration experiences, in particular: the need to balance their projects with workload commitments and other pressures on time and resources; the importance of recognising that collaborating is about mutual benefits for all participants, and the importance of putting in place good collaborative processes at the beginning of the project and then revisiting these from time to time over the life of the project. One participant warned of the pitfalls of making the collaborative contract too inflexible and so stifling innovative ways of working, while another wrote of the importance of finding the right balance between formality and collegiality in collaborative arrangments. Uncertainty over ongoing financial support or resourcing was also identified as something that could undermine the viability of collaborative projects.

The problem of competing pressures:

ª Collaboration works when there are no competing pressures. Easily said, but there are always completing pressures either external or internal.

ª In principle I believe that tertiary institutions are trying to collaborate but there are too many competing external pressures. Sometimes you feel that the mandate to collaborate also requires the fortitude to ‘make it work’ even when there are external barriers put in place by the people mandating to do it.

ª It is important that a collaborative arrangement such as this, with additional responsibilities and workload, gives due consideration to staffing levels to ensure an appropriate balance of work conducted on behalf of both entities.

The importance of reciprocity:

ª Collaboration with external oranisations is very important. It is a good way to establish and maintain external relationships but you need to be able to bring something to the table that will benefit these organisations as well.

ª I would prefer a more equitable arrangement whereby other partners have more of an input into content, etc.

It can be a long, involved process:

ª Dealing with several departments and the red tape involved was challenging at best. After fighting through these hoops and finding appropriate people to speak to, the process became a lot smoother.

ª I feel that the processes for collaboration between different stakeholders should be quicker and easier. It can become just too hard if the processes go on for too long and it gets frustrating for all concerned.



Project

39

2.15 SUMMARY This final section of the questionnaire analysis briefly summarises the main findings from the data. Section 3 then goes on to analyse the findings from the case study interviews with staff at ITPs.

Who are the partners?

ª Most collaborations involve ITPs working with only one or two outside partners, with the second most common type involving 10 or more partners.

ª The most common partner for collaboration is another ITP, with local businesses being the second most common.

ª Most collaborations occur with local or national partners; regional partners are less common and international very uncommon.

What motivates ITPs to collaborate?

ª The main purpose of the collaborations here was almost equally divided between the three options of enhancing the quality of teaching and learning (38%); sharing knowledge and increasing creativity (30%), and increasing efficiency at the institution (32%).

ª The main purpose of the majority of collaborations between ITPs and either another ITP or a private training organisation is to increase efficiency of resource use.

ª The main motivation for establishing a collaboration is to build relationships for future collaborations, followed closely by supporting student learning and/or employment training, and increasing credibility of the ITPs.

ª Enhancing the reputation of the ITP and a shared purpose or vision are the most important factors when choosing an external collaboration partner.

How are collaborations managed?

ª Email is the most commonly used form of communication with collaboration partners, followed by phone calls and face to face meetings.

ª Most collaborations between ITPs and outside organisations are based on formal structural arrangements, particularly those with other ITPs.

ª Collaborations with universities, private training organisations, government departments, iwi groups and non-profit organisations or trusts were also more likely to be formally structured.

ª In contrast, collaborations between ITPs and local businesses and the manufacturing and services sectors were most likely to be fairly informal.


40

What are the challenges to collaboration?

ª The biggest challenge to successful collaboration is time: time to carry out collaboration projects; arranging times to meet with other partners; travel time (and costs), and the time needed to establish collaborative relationships.

ª Poor communication with partner organisations due to distance or lack of responses to queries and concerns was another major challenge to collaboration.

What makes collaborations successful?

ª All partners having a common goal and partners being highly engaged in the collaboration are seen as important facets of a successful collaborative process.

ª The ability to build on previous collaborations or existing relationships is seen as making collaborating easy.

How are collaborations viewed by those who participate in them?

ª Most collaborations are viewed as being highly effective in achieving their intended outcomes.

ª Collaborations are viewed in a positive way by those engaged in them, with participants mainly agreeing that: their institutions are able to maintain their independence during the collaboration; that the right people are involved in the collaboration; that the collaboration is able to adapt to changing conditions, and that overall the partners have a clear sense of their roles and responsibilities as well as a clear shared goal or purpose.

ª Most participants agree that their collaboration project has increased the public profile of their institution and would recommend others at their institutions to get involved in collaborations.

How has collaboration affected those who take part in it?

ª Most participants feel that the collaboration has been successful at sharing knowledge and/or skills among the partners and that it is likely to lead to further collaboration will the same partners.

ª The majority of participants indicated that collaboration had changed how they carried out their jobs, with the most common change being in the classroom through greater awareness of employer or stakeholder needs.



Project

41

ANALYSIS OF CASE STUDY INTERVIEWS

3

This section of the report focuses on the interviews that were carried out at the second stage of data collection. All of

the 12 ITPs originally approached to take part in Phase One were invited to nominate projects for the interview phase of the project, and six agreed to take part. The researchers worked with a staff member at each ITP to source interview participants who were actively involved in collaborative projects. A total of 23 people involved in collaborative projects at six ITPs

were interviewed. Interview data also formed the basis of the vignettes in Section 4.

The interview transcripts were analysed for factors that supported successful collaboration as well as for any challenges or issues that arose. The results are presented here, supported by further literature. The first two areas of discussion relate to the context of collaboration: improving outcomes for stakeholders and improving efficiency. The second

two areas focus on the process of collaboration: establishing collaborations, and managing and maintaining them.

Each of the case study interviews was given a letter code, for example: (a). Quotations from the different interviews have been distinguished by using these codes. Quotations taken from questionnaires and interviews have been amended for clarity of meaning and to preserve anonymity where necessary.


42

3.1 IMPROVING OUTCOMES FOR STAKEHOLDERS

A key purpose of this research was to evaluate what makes for successful collaborations that provide mutual benefits for partners. In addition, the government expects ITPs to work collaboratively for the benefit of stakeholders (including students). This section focuses on ITP staff perceptions of stakeholder benefit from collaborations they are involved in.

As discussed in Section 1 our working definition of ‘collaboration’ includes the fundamental principles for collaborative relationships as mutually beneficial and accountable, involving the sharing of resources and rewards and aimed at achieving common goals. This ‘mutuality’ may be based either on a common appreciation of an issue and passion for resolving it (‘homogenity’) or on differing interests that are yet complementary, for example, where partners seek access to unique resources that other organisations hold (Thomson et al., 2007, p. 5). Mutuality in collaboration occurs where organisations: combined and used their resources to benefit all; shared information that enabled each partner to strengthen its operations; felt respected by each other; were able to achieve their own organisation’s goals better when working together than they could individually, and felt they could achieve ‘win-win’ solutions to any governance issues (Thomson et al., 2007, p. 20). This aligns with the position taken by Kania and Kramer (2011) with regard to collective impact, namely that a deep collaboration does not require all partners to be doing exactly the same thing, but rather that each partner undertakes the activities that it does best in a way that supports and is coordinated with and mutually reinforces the actions of the other partners.

3.1.1 The benefits of research collaborationsITPs collaborate with external stakeholders in order to enhance research capacity and confidence. Within such relationships participants can develop “a new repertoire of ways to respond to problems”, creating a culture of inquiry where individuals can share insights (Holland & Ramaley, 2008, p. 45). Honeyfield et al. (2010) found that clear benefits accrued to all ITPs involved in a collaborative research project to develop a shared resource for new tertiary teachers. The ITPs involved in developing the guidelines found opportunities to grow new relationships and gain experience from a wider range of experts than they would have had available individually. Personal benefits accrued to individual team members by developing their research capacity and confidence, and by offering an ongoing community of practice that they were all able to access. This is illustrated by a participant in this study, when speaking about a member of team on a collaborative research project:

She’s just starting on her PhD and she said, ‘I would never have been able to get to this place of starting my PhD if I hadn’t been part of this research.’ So that’s the least experienced researcher feeling like having the experience of working in a team has given her the confidence in her own ability to do research, that has enabled her to go on and do her PhD. And that kind of thing of being able to come together with [others with] varying degrees of experience, that’s very valuable for the least experienced. (b)

You’re actually growing capabilities.



Project

43

Writing and presenting are two key elements of developing research capacity. The value of collaboration for developing skills in these areas is illustrated here:

This is only the second conference presentation for [two of the project group]. They have presented once at a local one, but never at a national one like this, so that’s also a first opportunity for them, and they might not have wanted to do it on their own, but [they can] with someone like me being there, understanding how the whole thing works. (c)

What I’m learning about at the moment is that people are really concerned about their writing. So we say to people ‘I’m going to push you’. And then they came to the face to face meeting a couple of weeks ago and were reading out bits out of their writing, and we were able to give comments about it. You’re actually growing capabilities. (d)

Where there are several collaborators working together on a research project it is important that everyone’s contribution is recognised, and that there are opportunities for different people to take the lead for different outputs.

One of the things we looked at was: ‘how many outputs can we get from this?’ We have agreed collectively that we are going to take turns at being the lead, pushing each of those [outputs] through, and having our name at the forefront and leading a particular project – so that it is not [just] one person getting [all the] outputs but we’re taking turns to share it. (c)

Honeyfield et al. (2010) found that their project could not have been done by individual institutes working alone; it required the multiple and diverse range of people and perspectives that a combined approach provided (p. 21). This need for seeking resources beyond the walls of one institute is echoed by Holland and Ramaley (2008): “educational attainment requires collaboration

for knowledge exchange” (p. 34). There is clearly a value to ITPs, as research collaborations allow tertiary institutes to access key resources and expertise that lie outside their gates. In addition, a mutually successful research collaboration can open the door to further collaborative ventures:

Research collaborations tend to be for a specific topic, for a specific project. So there will be, perhaps, a limited life to that collaboration. People might just come together to do a particular piece of work. Having said that, in my experience one piece of work often leads to something else. (b)

Many ITPs are still in the early stages of developing their research culture. Collaborations with other institutions with a more established research culture can be particularly useful to help develop research confidence and capacity, as well as give additional credibility.

It probably will lead to other projects, being part of that whole building the relationship between us. (b)

Successful research collaborations were also viewed as a way to increase the mana or status of the institute:

When you have something new there is always elements of risk. If this goes well, the mana of [institute] will go up high. So we can have a raise in mana there. (e)

At the same time it is important that all partners have an equal share of power, and that no individual institution is ‘taken over’ by a larger or more well-resourced partner. Lavie-Ajayi, Holmes and Jones (2007) who analysed a collaborative participant-led research process suggest that it is important to “open your eyes to issues of power and make explicit where power lies in the team” (p. 427). They go on to endorse the value of setting out a joint working agreement or code of conduct that can be referred to in times of conflict or when there may be a need to reinforce the partnership.

There was definitely some danger in the initial stages that

the university would just take it over, I felt. That’s why having that memorandum of agreement was actually quite helpful. It just acknowledged that we were working together…We are talking about a group of people who don’t know each other very well at the beginning [of the project]. I mean, there was a bit of them not being sure, and me not being sure. For me, I’ll be really honest, it was my idea, and I wasn’t going to let them take it away from me, you know. If there was going to be research done, I was going to be involved. I wasn’t going to say, ‘Here you guys do it.’ (b)

Research collaborations are possibly one of the most fruitful fields for ITPs to collaborate in, as is borne out by the words of these participants:

Have I benefitted? I suppose I have learnt a bit about myself. I’ve loved it, I’ve enjoyed it. I mean, if I did research again, I would always want to be in a collaboration. (f)

We love the fact that when staff come back they bounce off the walls, they just get so much out of being together as practitioners, as educators. (d)

If I did research

again, I would

always want to be in a

collaboration.


44

3.1.2 Supporting student learningThere are direct benefits for students when their institutions collaborate with outside organisations. Amey et al. (2007) argue that such collaborations offer students access to additional instruction, resources and facilities, and that they may find it easier to progress between different levels of education. Some of the case study collaborations involved contact between students and local employers and communities. As one interviewee explained in respect of a particular inter-organisational collaboration, students were able to experience ‘real world’ situations within a safe environment:

It is the kind of things that they [the students] will face all the time out there in the world, regardless of where they might end up in this sector or in the workforce, you know, the ability to work as part of a team and to deal with conflict, to deal with something that doesn’t happen, or a proposal that gets turned down, all of these things. You’ve got to be able to kind of take it [and to] learn from it and move on. (g)

Learning that occurs in community settings has been shown to foster “deeper, more lasting insights and promotes greater confidence and competence” for students and staff alike (Holland & Ramaley, 2008, pp. 40-41). Holland and Ramaley note direct benefits for teaching and learning, through promoting “’engaged learning’ that can improve achievement and retention levels” (p. 34). By drawing real-life experiences into the curriculum, teachers “can make the creation and application of knowledge both visible and compelling” (p. 38) and can ease the transition from tertiary education to the workplace and the world. This was the benefit from a number of projects discussed in interviews:

Some of that was using students as research assistants and those kinds of things, and some of it was actually directly bringing that experience of employment into the

classroom. (b)

The partnerships helped us and the students with practicum placements. (h)

I think the students’ learning is what [institute] gets out of it. But not only that; [institute] gets a lot of exposure in terms of students being out there in the community, being seen to be dealing with these kinds of issues and doing this work in the community. (g)

3.1.3 Engaging with communities Case study interview participants considered community collaboration to be a fundamental part of the role and business of ITPs and something that they had a right to be proud of, as expressed in the following quotation:

There’s a lot of different collaboration that [institute] has actually gotten itself involved in; so it’s with community, it’s with industry, it’s with other government agencies…And the stuff that a lot of the metro polytechnics were talking about, we’ve been doing for years. They’re saying: ‘this is where we need to go’, and we’re sort of sitting there thinking: ‘ok, we’ve already gone there’. (k)

Participants consistently showed a high level of commitment to the goals of their collaborative partnerships. A participant in a community-based project with the goal of getting young people not just qualified but also employed, for example, stressed his commitment to the value of that goal and his delight in the successful outcomes of the project:

And that’s where the success has been, because they [project participants] actually regenerated the foundation of who [the students] actually are and where they stand in this world, the importance of who they are…And that’s why the collaborations that we commit to are so important, because finding those jobs is transforming lives. (v)

Holland and Ramaley (2008) note the mutual benefits for stakeholders in the engagement between tertiary institutions and local and regional communities, expanding learning and discovery within tertiary institutes while also enhancing community capacity (p. 41). They posit that deep community engagement is more than ‘one way’ outreach whereby a tertiary institute informs the community or where communities act merely as laboratories for research topics. It requires institutes to recognise that communities also have expertise to offer them. Collaborative engagement with the wider community builds on the recognition that institutes and their staff are themselves deeply embedded in their communities.

That’s why the collaborations

that we commit to are so important,

because finding

those jobs is transforming

lives.



Project

45

I first approached [the local university] because I knew someone there, and I said: ‘look, we’ve got to do some research around this.’ And she contacted others in her little staff goup. When things like that happen, right in your backyard, you know, that’s the sort of stuff we should be doing as part of our strategic plan to respond to what’s happening in our community. (b)

In order to be able to facilitate the projects they have to exist in the first place, so there has to be someone who has some kind of engagement with the wider community in order for these opportunities to come our way. I’m used to having my eyes and ears open when I’m out and about talking to people. So that’s how it happens, it’s always through a conversation somewhere. And it could be anywhere, it could be in a café, it could be in a bar, it could be at a meeting, it could be literally anywhere. (g)

Nye et al. (2005) analyse the ways in which American colleges and universities have partnered or collaborated with community development organisations to carry out projects to improve the neighbourhoods they share. They suggest that successful partnerships of this kind can make important contributions to community development and meet the organisational needs of all partners in the process including increased financial, human and organisational capacity, and enhanced education and research (p. 10). Similarly Holland and Ramaley argue that in a true collaborative arrangement, knowledge is co-created “through mutually-beneficial partnership relationships between higher education institutions and communities of all types” (2008, p. 46). They point out the value in working with students to share knowledge and encouraging them to develop a sense of social and civic responsibility. These mutual benefits are apparent in some of the more community-focused case studies, such as one between a group of ITP

students, a city council and a group of teen skateboarders:

The students met with users of the skatepark and had meetings and discussed design. The council were there, and people who had teenage kids, and they wrote the chalk signs on the footpath and things about it at the old skate park. There were quite a lot of young kids that participated, and we took a bbq down there, and made food. While the work was being installed lots of young people came down and helped, and people who were walking past stopped and helped, parents came over and helped. (g)

Such collaborative relationships can change the tertiary institute as well as the individual staff and students involved, creating a common sense of purpose within the community which is reflected internally by “developing a stronger fabric of internal campus community spirit” (p. 38). Community partners want to collaborate with tertiary partners who are willing to spend time getting to know the community, that listen and respect cultural values and practices and that are willing to share resources and knowledge in relevant

ways. Holland and Ramaley (2008) discuss the “engaged institution” that develops deep relationships with community partners and thus mutually strengthens the capacity of both the institute and the community and generates new energy for further collaborations (p. 40).

Even very informal collaborative relationships such as networks have benefits for stakeholders. “The need for networking becomes vital whenever a relatively large number of small actors aim at a target which cannot be attained in isolation” (Karatzoglou, 2012, p. 2).

At any time of the day I can ring up anybody from another polytech and ask them any question. Any question I want, and they are all just there to help. Everybody’s helping everybody. Having that network is so important. (p)

Networks allow for sharing of information, knowledge and experience. “An overarching trait of networks is that they bridge multiple diversified actors sparking the prospect for creative ideas and innovative patterns of action” (Karatzoglou, 2012, p. 2), as reflected in the comments of participants here:

In order to be able to facilitate the projects they

have to exist in the first place, so there has to be someone who has some

kind of engagement with the wider community in order for these opportunities to

come our way.


46

[The collaboration] certainly opened up relationships for us, because not long had we been doing this project I got a call from the guy that we’ve been working with saying that they wanted some more research done and could we help, which was cool…And then you know, I get a call from someone else who works in [another region] for the council, saying: ‘I heard that you did this piece of work for this other person, and would you like to come and do the same thing for us down here?’ (b)

It’s about opening, broadening your horizons a little bit, meeting everybody that’s here, making connections, and making people realise that you’re around, and that…well, actually, we are doing some really valuable things here. (m)

We were open to learning and sharing, and we were actually professionals sharing different skills at that level. (n)

Our institute is an amazing institution. It’s got huge potential and it’s really engaging with our community and with our industry. (k)

ITPs are traditionally concerned with supporting the academic and vocational success of students in their own local communities (TEC, 2010), and this is another way that they can support local and regional

development. ITPs clearly recognise the importance of meeting the needs of their communities:

We were at a position here in [region] where we did have a smattering of Mãori language and culture programmes, but the area really wasn’t growing. And I think there was mounting concern that we were not quite meeting the market, for what the people of this community necessarily wanted. (u)

We focused it on [our region] and that’s why it’s been successful…Because nobody’s offered anything now, people sitting around, nothing to do, the elderly are worried about their young people, and the young people leaving and getting into trouble with the law and all those things. And so you [institute representative] arrive there and you are, for a lot of them, especially the elders, a breath of fresh air. (k)

One participant observed that there are times when it is challenging for ITPs to meet local needs and at the same time to position themselves in the national and international education marketplace:

That’s got to be one of the challenges of partnership: one of the things you want to do is create better provision for your own people, but the other is also that you want to build on what is distinctive in your own region and get more people coming in

nationally and internationally. (a)

We realise that the collaboration [also] needs to happen externally, outside New Zealand as well, for us to survive. (k)

Effective collaborations between ITPs in programme development and delivery need to be built on an understanding and respect for differences between the institutions, and a clear understanding that the students are the key stakeholders in any project. It involves the partners “working alongside one another to meet the best interests of our learners whilst respecting distinctions and diversity” (Collaborating Efficiency Project, 2003, p. 14). For some participants this was a significant factor in the context of their collaborative projects:

The regional ITPs have approached us, and they are wanting a pathway for their own students. They were wanting people to stay in their own communities and earn and learn. (h)

And we lease the facilities, the training rooms etc, the teaching spaces, they’re part of an agreement and the provision of support services for the students is, again, part of an agreement. So in that regard, I wasn’t able to deliver that degree, it didn’t look like I was ever going to be able to deliver it, but it had a significant portion of the population disadvantaged, and they could do it if it was more locally available, kind of follow that study pathway, and so I felt it was imperative for me to actually enable that to happen. (a)

Nye et al. (2005) found that information and research skills are seen as principal benefits that higher education personnel can offer in partnerships with neighbourhood community development organisations, providing them with access to expertise that they often lack themselves. Interviewees were very aware of the value they could add to their local and regional communities.

At any time of the day I can ring up anybody from another polytech and ask them any question. Everybody’s helping everybody. Having that network is so important.



Project

47

I think understanding where what you are doing fits within in the industry is quite crucial. We could have quite easily gone in and been quite a large competitor for a number of organisations that are currently funded to do things and that would have been quite negative in terms of how we connect with the industry…Our philosophy going into this was that we were going to fill a gap within our local community [but] whatever we provided, we weren’t going to go into competition with other providers. (l)

An uneven balance of power between partners can be an issue in collaborations between large institutes and smaller groups in the community.

Collaboration is also about power, and we de-politicise every situation, and what you’re talking about is actually politics, isn’t it? Politics of making a livelihood and getting what you need and equity issues…We in the tertiary sector particularly in the polytech sector…we like to ignore the real power dynamics…when everything is really political for the people on the ground. They’re talking about what’s rightfully theirs and the way that society is organised, and you as a government agency are seen in their eyes as maybe good people coming over as individuals, and they may appreciate you, but you’re also seen as part of the representation of an institution and the Crown, particularly in Mãori relationships, and you come with a certain power in that dynamic. (k)

Our philosophy going into this was that we were going to

fill a gap within our local community

[but] whatever we provided, we weren’t

going to go into competition with other providers.


48

3.2 IMPROVING OPERATING EFFICIENCY

The literature identifies external collaborative relationships as a strategic method for organisations to improve operating efficiency and the efficacy of service delivery, and to increase innovation. Greater efficiency in the use of resources and a reduction in competition for scarce resources are identified as major motivations for inter-organisational collaborations in the business and public sectors. Partnering with others “is believed to increase efficiency and innovation, local adaptation, increased flexibility, and enhanced community ties” (Chen & Graddy, 2009, p. 53). Collaboration may also reduce the time and effort needed for negotiation between organisations, provide a buffer against external uncertainties and increase adaptability, while at the same time reducing costs and improving productivity (Merchant, 2011; O’Leary et al., 2009; Pisano & Verganti, 2008; Tschirhart, Amezcua & Anker, 2009).

A review of the New Zealand literature shows that work in the area of inter-institutional collaboration for efficiency is well underway. For example, there are a number of case studies exploring the integration or standardisation of multiple qualifications across tertiary education providers, with the goals of greater certainty for students and employers, more efficient use of resources and a reduction in duplication (Butcher, Holleyoak & Sutherland, 2012; Corich, 2006; Chinlund et al., 2011; Fraser, 2008; Glassey, 2008). This research provides further examples of the considerable efforts being made by ITPs in the area of collaborating for efficiency gains.

3.2.1 Efficiency of resource useThe TEC Collaborating Efficiency Project identified a number of areas where collaboration between TEOs and other stakeholders could lead to efficiency gains, specifically in the areas of shared capital (including collaboration in the purchase and use of fixed assets and sharing spare capacity in TEO assets); library services (building on an existing trend toward integrated, system-wide and formalised resource sharing); entrepreneurial activity (including enhancing opportunities for commercialisation and sharing research and development facilities), and staffing (including improving efficiency in programme development and reducing duplication) (Collaborating Efficiency Project, 2003).

Collaboration between ITP libraries has been in operation for some time and they offer major efficiency gains. The incentives for collaborating include: responding to user needs to improve access to information; cost pressures on limited library budgets; international best practice, and the availability of technology that enables libraries to access and share information.

Inititally the group was formed by us talking at our annual general meeting, and we approached the publishers and said: would they look at a consortia deal? If a number of us wanted to purchase the same database, would they look at reducing the price? And so they came back with various offers and, depending on the number of polytechnics that took up the offer and the number of licenses we wanted, they gave us a scale of charges. It means we can get a much better deal from the publishers. (o)

They just talk about things and see if there is a better way of doing things, see what’s new, what’s coming up.



Project

49

The Collaborating Efficiency Project noted barriers to such collaborations including: unequal benefits (where smaller institutes tend to benefit more than larger institutes from collaborations); distinct institutional focus and independence; perceptions that institutions are operating in a competitive commercial environment; technological systems barriers, and a lack of resources to meet the start-up costs for longer-term projects (pp. 21-22). The library example illustrates one of these barriers and how eventually this was overcome:

Initially it was only the larger polytechnics that were buying into the online databases, but as time has gone on, because the price has become more favourable (and of course the more members of the consortium there are the better the deal we have been able to negotiate) it has been possible for the smaller polytechnics to come on board. (o)

Even where collaboration does not necessarily lead to major cost savings other outcomes are improved including learning opportunities and educational outcomes. Interviewees described benefits as including cost savings as well as improved outcomes for the librarians who were implementing the databases and educational benefits for the students who were able to access them.

Well I think one of the benefits was that they felt they had collegial support, because we were purchasing the same online databases, and I think they felt we could contact one another and learn from each other’s experience. There were advantages in giving and sending information to our students, using the same databases, and I think the main thing was there was more power to negotiate a better deal. (o)

A major challenge to collaborating for efficiency gains, as identified in the literature, is how to collaborate within a competitive environment. The library collaboration discussed here highlights a particularly successful example of ITPs working

together to achieve an efficient use of resources. Possibly it has been so successful because it is an area where there already was a sense of working together, rather than being in competition.

Traditionally, even when polytechnics were operating in that environment of competition, libraries were still co-operating with one another. It’s something we’ve always done [and] we’ve always done it very well. The inter-library loan scheme is a perfect example of how we all co-operate, not just within the polytechnic sector, but across the whole library sector. (o)

Another interviewee describes a situation where a second ITP was coming in to deliver courses within the region traditionally dominated by the local ITP. In this case the issue of competition was addressed openly and the two ITPs went on to offer programmes collaboratively:

They [institute] came to us and said: ‘look, we want to run some forestry programmes but we don’t want to go into opposition with you’. (k)

A participant at this ITP also mentioned challenges that combined course delivery posed for inter-ITP collaborations:

That’s the irony isn’t it? Here’s another collaboration, right, so the government is saying ‘we need to review the qualifications and everything; work together so you can save money’…Competition is at the heart of the system, so when it comes down to who’s going to design your course, who’s got the IP for it, how does it work, [who’s got] the students…we’re competing on courses. (k)

The participant argued strongly that collaboration was a better model for eductional success:

We’re all linked, we’re all blood brothers, because we’re working together. (k)

The growing emphasis on collaborating for efficiency gains has seen more institutes working together

for their mutual benefit, as expressed here:

We’d been wanting to try and create a regional partnership, and the opportunity for the four institutions to work together to build on the complimentality, of what our strengths are, and also to create a kind of seamless set of pathways that the people of the local community could actually map out their tertiary journey. The regional tertiary partnership that’s grown out of the university and the polytechnic is really trying to do that. There is a joint academic committee, it does look at what programme developments are, it looks at those pathways, sees where the gaps might be and sees whether we can fill those gaps. (a)

We’re all linked,

we’re all blood

brothers, because

we’re working

together.


50

3.2.2 TEO collaborations for efficiencyTertiary teaching institutions are also collaborating with each other, and with other stakeholders, to improve operating efficiency (Kezar, 2005). One area where efficiencies can be gained through tertiary inter-institutional collaboration is the joint identification and response to legal and regulatory frameworks, where a shared approach can alleviate some of the costs for individual institutions (Anderson et al., 2006). The New Zealand Government expects ITPs to collaborate with stakeholders to assist them in meeting the priorities of the Tertiary Education Strategy. In particular, the government is continuing to focus on improved efficiency across the tertiary education system, to further improve learner outcomes and to contribute to economic growth. This includes collaborating with other TEOs to provide foundation and vocational education to learners nationwide, while identifying and building on their own specialisations or ‘points of difference’ and avoiding duplication (TEC, 2014, pp. 21-22). In addition to this, the TEC “expects TEOs to explore ways to increase efficiencies through shared services, infrastructure and other collaboration, such as partnerships” (p. 22).

A number of the interviews highlighted projects that involved two or more ITPs working together to deliver programmes and share funding. In addition a number of the vignettes in Section 4 of this report also illustrate examples of ITPs collaborating with each other and with other stakeholders in ways that improve their operating effiency.

The feedback from the community was that they wanted a particular course. And [other institute] provides such courses, and people can go and do that, but it’s a long way away. And it takes a lot to set up a course and get permission and so on, so what one of [our institute] directors did was actually enter into a partnership with [other institute] with a memorandum of understanding

[to share EFTs and funding]. So they were enrolled as [other institute] students but the course was delivered here. (n)

So the other polytechnic was receptive to the idea to some sort of collaborative arrangement and it was because they were looking to expand their horizons in [this region]. They were moving around the country setting up campuses, and so they could see an advantage of working under a sort of an umbrella with a larger public provider. (u)

So that’s been the model that we’ve tried to work on, where we’ve got a strong, established market [and] good outcomes at diploma level, and then trying to cap it off through a partnership with the university or a polytechnic, to bring the degree completion here to [institute]. (a)

The focus in New Zealand on maximising the use of educational infrastructure is in line with international concerns. For example, Amey et al. (2007) note that partnerships among tertiary institutes are increasingly common in the United States where policymakers view sharing of facilities and resources as strategic ways of meeting both education and economic goals (p. 5). Debowski (2008) argues for greater recognition of the important role of collaboration between institutes in increasing efficiency in the Australian tertiary sector. “We are at the point where the benefits of collaboration need to be recognised and cultivated to reduce wasted effort and resources” (p. 51). This type of partnership is illustrated by one of the case studies examined here:

The main purpose of the partnership, really, was to enable that presence of the university, and that meant infrastructure and campus, and services. That eventually led to [our campuses] being co-branded. (a)

Sharing resources in such a way can make good economic sense and need not undermine the independence of institutes:

Basically we work very closely in partnership with [other institute]. They have a co-ordinator who looks after the marketing, enrolment, application side. So they really broker the applicants into the programme for us. [Other institute] has a tutor who works with the students, they might see them one to one, and when we have noho marae they attend; workshops, the same thing. So the programme remains ours, the teaching responsibility remains ours, but they are supporting the students. We have access to…to computers [and] to the library on their campus. (h)

The best example probably of taking that position really was what came next, so by now we had a shared campus, so all our

So the other polytechnic

was receptive to the idea to some sort of collaborative arrangement

and it was because they were looking

to expand their horizons in this region.



Project

51

systems and services in time have become shared. So the delivery of IT, the delivery of library, learning support, counseling, they’re all shared. (a)

The local community and the students are the clear beneficiaries of arrangements such as these. Through partnering with another institute the home institute is able to increase the range of programmes offered to its community or to provide students with additional services and resources.

The literature identifies inter-institutional collaboration models as being particularly relevant to the promotion and rationalisation of online or e-learning. A number of countries have national policies for seeking sector efficiencies through the integration of information systems and by encouraging the development of synergies between institutions (Anderson, et al., 2006; Corich, 2006). One of the interviewees outlined such an example here:

I think technology and that online capability, our blended capability, is going to be essential for [collaborative framework]. We have a level 6 diploma in a particular programme [and there are] a number of other institutions who have two, three or four students who tend to be in employment. [Other institutes] can’t service that and so we’ve said we’ll deliver the qualification. We’ve gone and spent about a year working with others, and there’s some in [region] joining the lecture here at [institute] in real time. And they are part of the lecture, so it isn’t as if they’re looking at it in a retrospectively; they’re actually part of the lecture. The class is taking place here and we’ve got the individuals coming in from three or four sites, and the tutor is capable of including them and they’re capable of [contributing] into the lecture class as well. (a)

Walker and vom Brocke (2009) explore the creation of an international online eGroup model to support bilingual collaboration in

teaching and learning languages. The collaborative approach helps achieve economies of scale in providing the necessary expertise and content required to provide appropriate, content-based resources to students. The vignette of the Te Pumanawa Mãori language app outlined in section 5 of this report also illustrates an example of this type of collaboration.

Shared service arrangements have become increasingly popular in both the public and private sectors in recent years as organisations seek ways to achieve efficiencies and reduce costs through the consolidation of operational and administrative processes. Crump and Peter (2013) look at shared computing technology services, alignment and standardisation of business applications, integrating workflows and improving access to services and data, financial management and human resource services such as payroll. Some of the collaborative projects examined here demonstrate these types of arrangements:

There are a number of polytechnics who use [software] so normally twice a year we go up to Wellington, and we all meet as a group. There is a user group and an owner group. They just talk about things and see if there is a better way of doing things, see what’s new, what’s coming up. (p)

The motivation for collaborating can sometimes be as simple as economic survival, as one interviewee expressed it when explaining the motivation of the ITP in involving a major regional stakeholders deeply in its long-term future plans:

It’s about a case of survival, because we want to put our hands up and say that as expert educators and whatever, we want a slice of the pie guys, because we think we can add value…We want to get [stakeholder] in the heart of our future, let them define what the future looks like…and so then they say: ‘you are our provider[of choice]; [institute] is

our polytechnic’. (k)

The literature notes that there may be costs as well as benefits from collaborating (Gazley & Brudney, 2007; O’Leary et al., 2009). The investment in time and resources devoted to participating in a collaborative arrangement potentially may outweigh the rewards in terms of efficiency gains and access to resources. There may also be issues around sharing strategic resources, “that is, those that offer sustainable, competitive advantage to their holder” (Tschirhart, Amezcua & Anker, 2009, p. 18). The participants interviewed here largely considered that their collaborative projects produced worthwhile benefits in the long run:

And there are economies of scale around the numbers. So there’s sort of your social justice drivers alongside your financial drivers, so it’s a win-win really…The model we started with is being extended into other programmes in our polytechnic, so it’s becoming a bigger polytechnic. (h)

I guess [there is] a financial benefit, but they have also appreciated, I think, that initial relationship that our CEO developed with their CEO, all those many years ago, and our CEO offered support [in other ways]. I think they’ve never forgotten it. And I think they’ve always been very grateful that [our institute] stuck by them. (u)

I think one of the benefits has been that we are now identifying capacities that we’ve never really had to pull out of the hat before. (e)


52

3.3 ESTABLISHING COLLABORATIVE ARRANGEMENTS

In Sections 3.1 and 3.2 the case study interviews were analysed for issues around the context of collaboration. In this section and in Section 3.4 the focus is on factors addressed by participants around the processes of establishing and maintaining collaborative ventures.

The literature around establishing collaborations recommends that partners take the earliest opportunity to explicitly consider how they will manage the collaborative process. This is as important as identifying the mutual goals or common purpose of the collaboration and it should be done as early as possible, and should include a consideration of lessons that can be drawn from other collaborative projects with similar goals. Himmelman (2002, pp. 14-18) suggests individual organisations should start by asking themselves whether they should participate in a collaborative initiative at all. He recommends that an organisation should consider the costs and benefits of taking part in a project and how well prepared it is to be a fully participating partner (including whether it is able to allocate sufficient time and resources). Once each organisation has decided to participate, other questions for explicit consideration by the group as a whole include:

ª what motivates each partner organisation to be involved in the collaborative initiative? what does each partner organisation most want to accomplish through its involvement?

ª are those who will be most affected by the project involved? who else should be involved and how will the current partners involve them?

ª what expectations should partners have for each other? who makes decisions and what is the source of their authority? how will governance reflect and respect the diversity of the partners?

ª what can each partner contribute to the coalition? what resources will be needed? where funding is involved, is there a clear financial plan?

ª what incentives and rewards can be used to recognise and sustain partners’ contributions? what changes need to be made within individual organisations to support the collaboration?

ª how will conflicts be resolved?

According to Mattessich (2003) collaboration only works if participants put time and energy into establishing relationships as they take stock of their strengths and weaknesses as a group, a process that requires patience, courtesy and honesty. “Our research shows that, far from wasting time, these are critical steps to solving the issues that galvanized the group in the first place” (Mattessich, 2003, para. 22).

3.3.1 Choosing the right partnersBoth the literature and the case study interview data reinforce the importance of collaborating with the partners most likely to ensure that the goals of the project can be met. Working with partners who place the same high

Find the right people; if you haven’t got them, find them.



Project

53

value on the shared goal is key to successful collaboration. Nye et al. (2005) suggest that having a shared underlying philosophy as well as long-term relationships that have institutional continuity are two key characteristics of establishing a successful collaboration. A shared philosophy can help avoid issues where there are significant power or resource differences between the parties involved (Nye et al., 2005). Honeyfield et al. (2010) also identify a common philosophy and shared enthusiasm for the project and its outcomes as being a key enabler for collaborations. Excerpts from the interviews support the value of these factors.

Scope out your partners, it’s important that you are collaborating with the right people [and to] have your organisation behind you. Find the right people; if you haven’t got them, find them. (j)

I worked with someone who had the same philosophy, the same community. The people who you work with are important. More than the organisation, it’s our relationship with each other that matters. It’s very important.(j)

There are risks in going into partnership or collaboration and that’s why I think, you know, you have to have them really very well founded on principles and the shared purpose and vision. Then it’s making sure that all the people who have to deliver that for you not only understand that, but have confidence that you’re going to continue to back that up. (a)

Sometimes it is not just a shared interest that makes establishing a collaborative project possible but also the presence of structures that enable the institute to connect with potential partners. The importance of these structures in establishing a

collaborative project was highlighted by a participant who was looking to establish community-based delivery of training courses:

There are huge advantages for marae-based training because normally you’re going into an infrastructure that’s already established. There’s a marae committee, there’s a trust, there’s a treasurer. There’s not broadband or email or those sorts of things, but there is a structure, the same as round a church…Schools are the same. Within those structures it makes it easier for us to actually set up programmes and even [to] engage the people within those communities and provide them with employment opportunities to be a tutor or a tutorial assistant. (k)

It may take some considerable time to ensure that all the right partners are involved at the outset, and this exploratory communication and relationship building is a valuable part of the process. This is reflected in the words of one participant on setting up collaborative partnerships with local marae:

Our communication has to be good. I think [institute] has really come a long way in the last 12 months…for the simple reason we’re now starting to understand [the iwi, hapu and marae] structures and we’re starting to get the relationships. (k)

Interview participants were realistic about the challenges to establishing a collaboration and noted that conflicts sometimes had to be dealt with as part of the collaboration process. This is reinforced by Nye et al. (2005): “not only should the mutual interests be clear and acknowledged, but areas where interests are in conflict need to be known as well. The partners may still have some interests that

conflict or may not be served by this particular collaboration, yet still be able to work together where they have mutual interests” (p. 17). In other words, institutional disagreements or even competition in one area does not necessarily preclude cooperation in other areas.

As discussed in Section 3.1, the most appropriate collaborating partners may not necessarily all share the same philosophical viewpoint or the same interests, and yet they may be the key stakeholders needed ‘at the table’ in order to achieve the goal. This was discussed by a number of case study participants, some of whom also commented on the need to accept that at times one partner may find itself putting in more effort than others in order to get the project underway and make the collaborative process work.

And the issue comes down to two autonomous institutions, how you work together in a planning sense, in a delivery sense, but you also need to have a confidence about parity of a team, it’s not about equality necessarily, but it is about parity as a team. (a)

I’ve got a belief about collaboration: you can have all the structures you like, but it’s actually about how well people get on. (n)

I think collaborations are very difficult. I think they are very time consuming. And to get them going well, I think there needs to be a huge amount of goodwill. You’ve got to get in and support; you’ve got to be prepared to cover for others in your team. And you’ve got to be prepared for the fact that it’s not going to be equal. (f)

I think [the success factor] was everyone’s willingness to give it a go, because it was new, so it was: ‘how can we make this work?’ (n)

It’s not about equality necessarily, but it is about parity as a team.


54

3.3.2 Establishing a unified goal The literature agrees on the importance of establishing a clear, unified goals at the outset of any collaboration. According to Brown (2005) successful collaboration involves identifying a unique goal or set of objectives that are “separate and distinctively different from goals and objectives already identified by contributing agencies, organisations or individuals” (p. 6). This helps ensure that all partners are coming to the relationship with the same purpose in mind, and it needs to be explicitly discussed and agreed. A timetable for action can then be determined, and milestones established to measure progress.

The importance of setting a timeline with distinct goals is illustrated by two participants reflecting on what they learned about collaboration through their involvement in their current projects:

I think that one thing I would do at an early meeting is say: ‘these are the different elements, this is the timeline of the project, let’s all collectively agree that by this time we’re going to be up to here.’ We’re actually going to write a very brief account of what we’ve done so far, and that’s going to be our deadline for it. (c)

You need to build in the time to have meetings, or have skype meetings. You build it around your milestones that are required and you be really clear at the outset: ‘guys, this is where we’re going if we go this way’, and allocate clear responsibilities. (d)

Kania and Kramer (2011) point out that establishing common understanding can be harder than it sounds. “Each organisation often has a slightly different definition of the problem and the ultimate goal. These differences are easily ignored when organizations work independently on isolated initiatives, yet these differences splinter the efforts and undermine the impact of the field as a whole”. Factors for successful collaborations identified

by Brown (2005) include a shared vision that stems from a common desire to resolve an issue, and a distinctive and easily articulated goal that is formulated and agreed upon by all partners. Again, the time taken to work through this process is not wasted; mutual trust and respect grow out of these early meetings to formulate goals and a vision.

At the same time partners need to be able to readily adapt their goals when then clearly is necessary. Collaboration is considered to be particularly useful to resolve complex problems that are beyond the capacity of any one organisation working alone, however complex problems are by their very nature hard to fully delineate in advance. “This means that each participant needs to be comfortable with a certain amount of ambiguity” (Merchant, 2011, para. 4). Projects that involve community partners, for example, can be dynamic, organic processes, particularly those in the creative arts, as this case study example shows:

Because my projects are often really community orientated, you’d conduct a workshop, or have a consultation with members of the community. Everything might change at that point, including the design. Or something might happen in the workshops, you know someone might come in and go: ‘well, look, we’d really like to be involved, and we want to do this’ and then the whole project changes. But, you know, that’s kind of the point. (g)

Adaptability and fluidity of process should not lead to confusion, however, or this will reduce the chances of successfully establishing a collaborative project: “flexibility should not be confused with a fuzzy or vague sense of how things work”, as Mattessich (2003) notes. Successful collaborations are firmly underpinned by structures within which partners clearly know what is expected of them and what they can expect from the group (para. 13).

Collaboration is a process, and deep collaborations in particular require patience to establish. Solving

problems in a group may increase the options available to tackle issues but it can also mean delays in the early stages in reaching agreement on exactly what the problem is and how it should be addressed. Merchant (2011) refers to this as ‘thinking together’ and she argues this period of “messy and time-consuming up-front process” is important for designing long-term solutions that really work. “By thinking together, people can then act without checking back in because they were there when the decision got made. They’ve already had the debates about all the tradeoffs that actually make something work” (Merchant, 2011, para. 6).

If you’re talking about inter-sector [collaboration], so you’re talking from one part of the sector – the university sector, the wananga or the polytechnic sector – working across boundaries, then you have to give them confidence that there is an equal shared perspective on the partner’s side to the value of them doing this. If the staff don’t feel that and experience that and practice that, then you’re not going to get true, effective collaboration. (a)

You be really clear at

the outset: ‘guys, this is where we’re

going’, and allocate clear responsibilities.



Project

55

3.3.3 Developing trustMutual trust is fundamental to establishing collaborations. Developing trust takes multiple interactions over time as each organisation establishes its reputation with the group and demonstrates that it will carry out its commitments and engage openly and honestly with fellow partners. As trust develops even highly formalised collaborative arrangements increasingly mirror informal understandings and commitments, which builds a stronger and more sustainable relationship (Thomson et al., 2007, p. 6). Where there is already a history of collaboration between organisations or sectors, then new collaborative ventures are likely to require less time initially in getting buy-in or establishing trust (Mattessich, 2003, para. 6).

I looked for people with whom I had already had some kind of relationship. So it was really knowing that these people were good team members that encouraged me to invite them to be members of this research team. (c)

I really, really value the relationship, and in all sorts of philosophical ways…I think it’s about mutual respect and understanding…I suppose the equal partnership is important in that they’ve given us, I feel, a great deal, and it’s important that we give back, however we do that. So I do think trust in this relationship is very important. (u)

You [need to] build the kinds of relationships and the kinds of skill sets and trust. (d)

I was talking to business owners…I was having conversations and getting to know them really well, because they would not do anything unless it was built on trust. (k)

Nye et al. (2005) note that part of the process of developing trust is to ensure that the contribution of all partners is recognised and celebrated. They argue that: “the

interest of different parties and what each party brings to the partnership need to be clear, acknowledged, and valued by the partnership” (p. 17).

You know, you can’t trust or believe in collaborations until you actually know that they do do what the leader tells you. That they do help you, you utilise other skill sets, that you learn heaps. [Collaborations] are time consuming, they are quite stressful [so] they absolutely have to build on high trust relationships that you have to spend time on. (d)

Reciprocity and trust are closely related. The accumulating evidence that each partner will carry out its obligations towards the rest of the group, and that no organisation will take advantage of its partners even when the opportunity to do so is available to them, helps build trust (Thomson, et al., 2007, p. 6).

We used to have Friday morning sessions. [Partner] used to come even if we didn’t organise a meeting, because he really wanted to. So I got used to working with him, working out agreements, mutual trust I think. I hope it’s going to carry on, to develop an ongoing relationship…[Once] you’ve got a good firm foundation down, it’ll grow. (q)

Trust…means not just that they trust you as a person and have faith that what you say is true, but it’s also knowing what you’re able to do. They know that you have that skill set and that’s part of the trust that you have. (d)

It was a long-winded relationship-building, and trust that really mattered…It was a real commitment. (k)

3.3.4 Governance and structureBecause of the fundamental importance of trust and of communication, in the opening stages of a collaborative project it is useful to consider how decisions will be made and on the social practices that will guide the collaborative team (Alsalem, 2010). All participants need to feel that they can express themselves and explore new ideas safely, in an environment in which their ideas will be appreciated. Peters (2008) describes the ideally functioning collaboration as one that: “simultaneously accentuates the group while paying homage to the individual as a member of the group. This involves valuing group function while continually seeking ways to support individuals in their collaborative process” (p. 93). Mattessich (2003) also stresses the importance of explicitly considering how structures and processes will unfold and advocates developing a letter of agreement that spells out the roles, rights and responsibilities of participants (para. 13). Each participant organisation must also clearly understand how the collaboration is going to benefit it and help it accomplish its individual goals as well as the collective goal.

If I was to say, ok, for a region like this, that doesn’t have a university and really can’t afford to set up a university, we’re willing to work together. If we’re willing to work together, what are the main issues that affect the efficiency and effectiveness of that, and it is around terms of conditions of staff, processes and protocols of the two institutions, and

Collaborations are time consuming, they are quite stressful - so they absolutely have to build on high trust relationships that you have to spend time on.


56

employment contracts etc. (a)

I think what happens is, like any big organisation, there are silos. So a certain person was doing all of this, without talking with the other people about how can this be made to work. So the focus is: ‘let’s get the MOU [Memorandum of Understanding]’, but without really sitting down [together] and thinking: ‘what can this look like?’(n)

3.3.5 Institutional commitment to collaborationInstitutional support at management levels is regarded in the literature as a key element in establishing effective collaborations. Successful community development partnerships, for example, involve: “a clear commitment from the leadership of both the university and [community] partners and the active participation of all the key players” (Nye et al., 2005, p. 18).

One of the interviewees believed that collaborative ways of working were led by tutors and other staff ‘on the ground’:

I think as educators we all naturally have an innate tendency to collaborate, whether it’s within the institution or outside. And that’s probably more important than a CEO sitting and looking at some of the bigger institutional collaborations and partnerships, because that almost lays the ground or creates the environment where some of the bigger thinking can actually be quite productive. Because the fertile ground is simply part of what we are as teachers. (a)

Some other case study collaborations began ‘from the top’, with key management figures taking a leading role in their development:

It probably started with the relationship that formed between our institute’s chief executive and the chief executive of [other institute]. It was in relation to meetings they were both attending

in Wellington…And it was really through our initial discussions with [other institute] that the opportunity arose. (u)

At the end of the day it certainly comes down to people. And it’s got to start at the top. Your understanding of why you’re in partnership, and what are the implications of that partnership, have got to consistently come down from the top. If it doesn’t percolate down consistently, then you shouldn’t be surprised that you start to get political mismatches and misalignments occurring. (a)

Having key faculty members who are committed to the community is very important for successful partnerships, however the commitment of the individuals alone is not enough. Nye et al.(2005) go on to suggest that support by tertiary institutions for partnerships has to be “real and comprehensive and go beyond the values and commitment of individuals” (p. 19). Holland and Ramaley (2008) also stress that commitment to collaboration from academic staff and management, including making resources available, is particularly important for collaborations to establish succesfully. Institutional support needs to be more than superficial. Once agreements are signed there needs to be ongoing

and tangible support that helps in the smooth running of the collaborative process. Collaborative projects are often carried out in addition to work each organisation is already doing, and this can lead to stress for participants who are already busy with their ‘day jobs’ (Merchant, 2011). One of the most common reasons for collaborations failing is a lack of sufficient supporting infrastructure (Thompson, 2014).

Case study participants recognised the importance of institutional support and managerial recognition of the work they were involved in. They often noted that they received good support from their home institutes, as the following quotes indicate:

I saw a need to collaborate with people who were entrepreneurial, who were taking a risk. I respect that and so I wanted it to work and then the whole team here was supported all the way through. [It took] a certain amount of commitment to get the institutional approval and institutional drive to make it work. (q)

It’s not necessarily [the institute] seeking funding. I sought that funding personally. But [institute] was a supporter in some of the other ways, you know, [such as] providing the venue. (g)

I think as educators we all naturally have an innate tendency to collaborate, whether it’s within the institution or outside.



Project

57

3.3.6 Defining roles and leadershipWhatever the level of formality or depth of engagement, developing a shared understanding of the relationship and the roles of all participants is a precursor to all successful collaborations (Amey et al., 2007; Honeyfield et al., 2010). Equality of recognition between partners does not necessarily preclude the need for leadership. Indeed, as Lavie-Ajayi, Holmes and Jones (2007) note, a lack of any leader risks the collaboration becoming directionless or losing a sense of strategic ownership. They suggest that steps be built into the collaborative process “to explore and discuss openly boundaries, relationships and ownership” and to establish clear definitions of roles and boundaries of participants (p. 427).

Himmelman (2002, para. 3) defines “collaborative leadership” as “facilitating mutual enhancement among those working together for a common purpose”. He identifies the characteristics of such leadership as including:

ª the ability to persuade people to conduct themselves in a way that supports mutual trust and accountability;

ª the ability to respectfully guide others on good process that leads to desired outcomes;

ª the ability to encourage participants to contribute ideas and information that leads to effective problem-solving;

ª the willingness to actively encourage participants to share risks, responsibilities, resources and rewards, and

ª the ability to resolve differences including applying conflict resolution and win-win negotiating techniques.

Establishing clear roles at the outset was a crucial component in many of the case study collaboration examples that were examined here:

Instead of just seeing how

it evolved we actually got it established from the beginning how we were going to run it and how we were going to devolve responsibility and divvy up the different tasks to try and make it work more. [Partner] and I are listed as co-leaders for the project and we had meetings with the team members before we even started to talk about the roles, tasks and responsibilities. (c)

I was appointed to manage the contracts and the liaison work that goes on for programme development and getting programmes underway, and in turn the [other institute] provided their resources to get their people going. I was a Head of Faculty

at that point. [Partner] as the Academic Manager started to work out who would do what, so further memoranda arose under that overarching one that more specifically spelt out what the roles were in relation to teaching programmes. (u)

Allocating clear responsibilities is important. We say in our first discussions to any new members of the team: ‘tell us about you; tell us your strengths. What do you personally see yourself contributing to or gaining from [the collaboration]?’ (d)

Leadership roles in collaborations need not be equivalent to managerial roles within the invidividual partner organisations. For example, collaborations are often instigated by a ‘champion’ who instigates and sustains the collaboration (Amey et al., 2007, p. 7). The champion may also be the ‘leader’, however Amey et al. argue that true collaborative leadership evolves from being directive to facilitative, and eventually an “inclusive and servant-oriented” partnership develops (p. 8). The champion does not necessarily have to be in a senior position in his or her own organisation, but does need to be recognised as a leader within the collaboration itself, and to believe in the goals of the collaboration. At the same time it is important for the sustainability of a collaboration that the other partners do not rely too much on the champion, to the extent that if that person leaves the collaboration also dissolves (Amey et al., pp. 11-12). Some participants explicitly addressed the issue of leadership in the context of their collaborative projects:

I don’t see [my role] as being the manager or leader, because others have got way more experience in some areas and so they are running some of [the project]. But I think I’m co-ordinating it and making sure that our reporting stays on track, that we’re all keeping track of the emails, we’re all keep track of our budget times. Yeah, I am the managerial side rather than the

It’s got to start at the top. Your

understanding of why you’re

in partnership, and what are the

implications of that

partnership, have got to consistently come down

from the top.


58

leadership side. (c)

It’s sort of trying to draw people together around the particular project. I guess I do have that ability to let things happen and not get too stressed out about it, which I guess is a certain way of thinking about things. (g)

Good collaborative leaders may not necessarily be the partners with the most financial power or the loudest voices. Collaborations are no place for ego either, as one participant pointed out:

I think what has more effect with the success of the collaboration is a personality thing. I would say there’s very little ego in there, and I think that’s really critical. If you’ve got someone in there who has an agenda or who has a need to be the top pin or the one who is always published, you know you’ll have huge problems. Because they’re going to want to push it like a canoe. (f)

Not all the collaborations examined here had a clear framework for leadership. Some successful collaborations were able to function with leadership shared equally among members as the following example shows:

I just believe in distributive leadership and that the people who take part have a skill set. They need to develop that skill set and they need to use that skill set inside the project. So no, there is not a member who is ‘it’, you know…When it comes to leading, people should be able to pick a strand inside that and show their leadership. (d)

3.3.7 Connecting face to faceThe role that face to face communication plays in the establishment of collaborations is a significant one, not just during the setting up phase of a collaboration, but also in the pre-stages. As already noted, building trust takes time, and resolving complex problems with ambitious goals requires regular meetings of high-level, decision-making leaders from all organisations. Kania and Kramer (2011) favour regular face-to-face meetings supported by web-based tools to keep communication flowing between meetings.

The early groundwork for collaborative opportunities often occurs through face to face contact at meetings, conferences and committees:

It comes down to relationships: you’ve got to get yourself on to as many collaborative committees as possible. Because I could have easily not been a part of [this] meeting or the [that] meeting, but you’ve got to get in there. . . And you have to value them, you have to put in that time into making those connections. (i)

If you don’t talk to anyone you’re not going to get anywhere. So talking and being social in that sense is critical…We’ve had a lot of contact with the Department of Conservation and the regional councils, we’ve had research projects emerge out of those relationships. (r)

I think it started with about 12 of us [getting together at a forum]

you know, swapping ideas and things like that, for a day, and it’ll only be one day per year, but you come away with just so many ideas. (s)

The concept of connecting with others in a face to face capacity is known in Mãori culture as kanohi ki te kanohi. While the literal translation of this phrase is ‘face to face’, the social meaning goes deeper and emphasises both a physical presence and a sense of commitment (O’Carroll, 2014). Honeyfield et al. (2010) also identify the importance of face-to-face meetings particularly in the establishment phases of collaborative projects, and it is a factor that came through strongly in the interviews:

The important thing was to start off with a face to face meeting…Once the proposal was accepted and the project was on the first thing we did was meet face to face, and then do the arrangements about how it was going to work from there. (c)

I think it started with getting to know each other and sitting around a table here. (h)

Skype meetings help, but face to face meetings where you can actually be with each other, and come up with value sets and say: ‘what will be a good outcome for me?’ [are important]. And finding:‘ok, hey, we can line all this up and know that our organisation is going to benefit from it.’ (d)

And that was part of the planning, ‘do we think this will work?’ Because if we don’t think it will work we won’t keep going with it. Those early meetings were really good, just thinking about what the problems might be that we might come across. We met fortnightly or three-weekly right through that year, and that was great, because no one owned it. We worked on it together. (i)

Allocating clear responsibilities is important.



Project

59

Skype meetings help, but face to face meetings where you can actually be with each other, and come up with value sets and say: ‘what will be a good outcome for me?’ are important.


60

3.4 MAINTAINING AND MANAGING COLLABORATIONS

Once a collaborative venture has been established sustaining it over time requires good communication, the availability of funding, and staff who are resourced to engage in the process, and continued evidence of the value of the project (Finnerty, 2005). Issues around sustaining collaborations include a lack of time and difficulties in coordinating meetings between people with busy schedules at different organisations, compounded by a lack of strategies for managing these time management issues (Brown, 2005). Himmelman (2002) succinctly summarises the three most common barriers to successful collaborative working as “time, trust, and turf” (p. 1); as collaborating typically involves substantial time commitments, high levels of trust and “extensive areas of common turf” (p. 3) it is essential that these issues are identified and managed throughout the life of the collaborative partnership.

As long-term collaborations tend to go through cycles, it is important that participants regularly reassess the purpose and value of their collective work and reaffirm their commitment to working together. This can help sustain collaborations over months or even years (Thompson, 2014, para. 1). In this section the ways in which case study participants successfully maintained and managed collaborative projects are discussed.

3.4.1 Sustaining relationships over time To maintain a collaboration over time a shared meaning must develop between the actions that occur and the desired outcomes from the collaboration process. Each member organisation and individual may develop his or her own meaning or interpretation of the goal and role of the collaboration, as each member makes sense of the situation for themselves, however “developing a shared meaning helps sustain the relationship” (Amey et al., 2007, p.8). Collaborations lead to joint decisions which are owned by the group not by individual partners; however, it has been shown that this needs to be sustained within the collaborative team by commitment by all members and by a recognition of the work done by each member (Alsalem, 2010).

It’s a bit like a community of practice because we’ve all got a common goal, and our common goal is that we want our students to be the best that they can possibly be. I think that’s important that you have a common focus. (f)

You have to keep in touch, you have to be prepared to share things. I think as a group, we’ve always been happy to share information. (o)

You know it’s not just about financial things, it’s not just about: ‘you give me five programmes and I’ll give you five’. Those things are absolutely important, but it’s really at some level being able to understand and really value what that other organisation stands for, I think, in a philosophical sense. (u)

I like working in teams that way. We were able to develop trust. And that happened over a period of time, you know, at least six months. It’s like any good group forming, you’ve got to develop some trust. I had respect

It’s really at some level being able to understand and really value what that other organisation stands for



Project

61

for their abilities. I had seen them in the classroom, they were great teachers, I thought I could learn a lot from them. (n)

Shared goals and trust between collaborators has already been discussed earlier, in relation to the establishment of collaborations, but they also need to be acknowledged here. In one case the relationship built up between members over time meant that they were able to support each other and help a partner who otherwise would have left the group:

One team member had some really major things happen and at one stage was making loud noises of: ‘it’s getting really hard’, and that pulling out might be an option. It’s like, yes, that is an option. At the same time, how could we all work to help, like: ‘what else do you need?’ (d)

A number of interviewees also talked about importance of retaining a passion that sustained an ongoing commitment to make the collaboration work:

We formalised a lot of this, but again, it still comes back to someone having a passion about what you see is the right way to go. (i)

I see their enthusiasm and their passion for what we’re doing and, yeah, I think you need to be very careful about that. (d)

Another aspect that came through in the interview data is the value of some individuals in sustaining the group commitment to the projects. There was the sense that, in some cases at least, the longevity and success of the projects depended on particular individuals within either the ITPs or their partner organisations and that, without these individuals, they may not function as smoothly:

If I have concerns, the relationship is that I deal with them directly. So I’ve got contacts at all schools and I have one person who I can go straight to there. [I have built] that relationship and I’ve had it six, seven years now, and I know the people personally and I know how

we can relate to each other. And if I passed it onto someone else…it may not work, you know? (t)

It’s been relationships between me and [partner], between me and the students, between me and the [other institute]. So it’s all been about relationships and communication. (m)

that role, they bring along a different set of skills. They haven’t built that trust. (k)

Some participants spoke of their collaboration partners as a kind of family or whanau:

What it comes down to is actually the concept of creating that whanau…They call them communities of practice here, but I would say a family of practice. (e)

We do a lot of talking about the direction of the project. Yes, it’s always just been a happy family sort of collaboration. (i)

When collaboration involves Mãori partners or is in a bicultural context it is paramount that appropriate consultation takes place. This needs to be at all stages of the collaboration process:

The consultation process is really really important and it’s ongoing. I think there’s nothing like, in my view, Mãori managing and doing things for Mãori, they know best and it somehow seems to be a really good fit for Mãori learners…and there is an ongoing expectation that there is development not just of sensitivity and awareness but, I guess, incorporation of all the tenets of what biculturalism means into the way people function in a big organisation like this, right down from the way people teach, to the way people interact, to how Mãori learners want to be treated. (u)

One group of interview participants noted the ongoing communication, respect and sensitivity required to maintain collaborations with multiple iwi and hapu. This may include negotiating at many different levels with a complex range of representatives:

I read stuff in the ITP sector, you know…that is written at that abstract level, you know…and they talk about the hapu, and the iwi, [without] understanding the reality. There can be quite a strong disconnection between the activity of those groups and within the institution itself…It’s really

It’s all been about relationships and communi-cationOne participant explained how, after he had established strong relationships with external partners through one collaborative project, he was often called upon to take part in other projects or events unrelated to that project. In such a mutually supportive relationship the trust and familiarity that had built up between individuals was more important in sustaining collaborative relationships than the fact that he was a representative of his institute:

Anyone doing that role could formally fill those kinds of requests, but the tendency of those to happen frequently on an ad hoc nature, those are definitely based on the skills of the individual and the relationship you’ve developed with the individual…So the personal does matter…It’s also how they’ve got to know you and the skill sets and how they see you…The key ingredient is trust…When you change the person that’s doing


62

[important to] get to know them and to understand their needs. (k)

The same participant stressed the importance of the institute delivering what it promises as part of its commitment to discrete collaborative projects, as this is vital for maintaining trust not only with Mãori representatives in that project but also many other projects with other interconnected Mãori organisations.

For us collaboration [with an individual] is also a relationship for the iwi, it’s for the relationship with the land. (k)

The relationship between the collaboration leader and other team members was also seen as being particularly important by some participants.

Actually one of the key elements [that makes it work] is [partner]. She is certainly taking a leadership role here and it’s a very positive, almost Pollyanna-type of approach. But I think…you need to have somebody who is like that. (f)

Appreciation of what collaborative partners contribute to the relationship is also important. Something for ITPs to consider is the importance of thanking and acknowledging their industry partners:

Industry, that’s our collaborative partners. At any one time I’ve got five or six of those. At the end of the year we have an appreciation day…I personally go around and say: ‘thank you very much again for what you’re doing’, and emphasise again the importance of their input to the programme. (t)

3.4.2 Managing challenges and conflictMost case study participants downplayed any challenges or conflicts that had occurred during their projects, instead focusing on the positive aspects of the process. Where they did identify challenges the most common challenge to collaboration identified by interview participants was that of a lack of

time, which is consistent with the questionnaire data. Honeyfield et al. (2010) identify this as a major issue for inter-ITP collaboration including the difficulties of scheduling meetings and in finding time in busy working lives to carry out the projects.

The only real issue I’ve had, and we’ve all had, is with time. And so time is the key, and there isn’t any of it. And there was very little of it, and that’s the expensive part of it. (r)

A further challenge to collaboration mentioned by interview participants was dealing with circumstances outside of their control:

From my perspective I haven’t perceived any concerns whatsoever. The only issues are perhaps created by outside factors, such as delays in approval of programmes from the NZQA: things we can’t control. (u)

As noted above, it is important that institutes and collaboration partners recognise the efforts of partners. A failure to provide recognition can undermine a collaborative relationship or dampen partner enthusiasm as this example shows:

I guess the only hiccup we had really was when it was really showing some success, sort of halfway through the year I guess, the [partner organisation] started taking off with it and show-casing it everywhere, without us. And that hurt. It didn’t hurt me,

because I wasn’t worried, I was so excited about it, but it hurt [my colleague] who’d put a lot of effort in, and you know, she should’ve been included in the show case thing. (i)

Changing partners is another challenge that was discussed by some participants. Partnerships can change over time as issues or the role of champion shifts and new partners become involved.

So a new vice chancellor came in, without an awful lot of history of collaboration between the university and polytechnic, and we went back to, you know, that issue of lack of parity of esteem…So we once again had to start to work on the shared perception of what this [collaboration] was for, [and firstly] who it was for. (a)

You know, you’re not talking a long project before you’ll see people go. Yes, the loss of key personnel, we have been talking about that, and then taking the time to gather in the person who might have replaced them into that fold and that’s challenging. (d)

Sustainable collaborations are “based on being flexible to new inputs and adjusting accordingly” (Amey et al., 2007, p. 12). They need to be adaptable, to be able to sustain themselves in the midst of major changes in the membership of the collaboration team or in the wider community.

You need to be a person who is able to cope, to adapt, and just not get too wound up about the details. And that’s quite a challenging thing to do.



Project

63

One of our partners has been completely reassigned to somewhere else so she’s no longer involved, but that’s not been an issue, and the other person’s left [institute] and gone into [another institute]. Now neither of those things really presents much of an obstacle because…I think you do need to think about those things when you’re planning research. We planned to do our [field] research over the space of three years and so we went in and did it…and I’ve got three years of samples to go through in the lab so it doesn’t matter what happens at [other institute] or wherever. (r)

Flexibility was identified as being an essential ingredient in sustaining and managing a successful collaboration. Participants emphasised the importance of being prepared for the likelihood that individual members of a collaborative team might have to leave the project, or that the needs of partner organisations or the wider political and social environment could alter in ways that affect ongoing projects.

You have to be flexible because people have different things going on in their lives and they have different agendas. You can’t be too prescriptive and too hard line. You need to be a person who is able to cope, to adapt, and just not get too wound up about the details. And that’s quite a challenging thing to do. (g)

I think it [flexibility] is really important. And I think it’s really important for both sides to understand and be tolerant of the sorts of pressures that each area is under. (u)

I like to talk about these things being quite fluid processes, and it’s not really that frightening to see that happen. It’s not as frightening as you would think. People do get easily scared by those things, or think things aren’t going to happen, but they always do. (g)

Managing expectations of what the institute can offer was noted as being a challenge in some community collaborative settings:

Often [institute], being a government agency, is looked at as a cash cow. It’s [about establishing] that understanding at the beginning about, well what does [institute] bring and what can the community do for itself. (k)

Another challenge identified by one interviewee was that of managing complex relationships with outside partners who were also funders and who therefore considered that they had a special stake in the project.

When it comes to public art works and community engagement, [where] funders are partners and city councils are partners, you end up with these kind of multiple partners who do have their own things that they want to achieve within that project. (g)

As with questionnaire respondents some interviewees found that conflicting central government expectations and policies could impact on local collaborative success:

We’ve been talking about industry and community partners, and here’s the biggest problem of all: collaboration between different government departments. (v)

I would say that’s our biggest challenge, collaborating with other government departments, because they have their set of targets and they’re driven by a target performance culture…Our education philosophy is that we want to create good citizens, questioning citizens, active citizens…And now we talk about visions, missions, targets, league tables…It drives collaboration in an interesting [direction] as a result. You might think it just changes the ‘what’ but it also changes who we are as professionals. It’s quite fundamental, in that it changes the way we relate to people. It’s not just what we do, it’s who we become in those relationships which is interesting. (k)

I’ve been in education in New Zealand for over 30 years, and I’ve seen it go this way and [that] way…One of the hardest things for us, you know, you talk about 30 year plans or 100 year plans [but] because of our frequency of our elections the policies are changing too quickly…It’s really hard. (v)

3.4.3 The importance of continuous communication Ongoing communication and the constant exchange of information are vital in maintaining collaborations. Both the quality and quantity of communication is important; this includes the importance of informal contact between participants. As Brown (2004) finds: “partners who are fully and consistently informed for all facets of the projects are more likely to maintain enthusiasm and commitment” (p. 7). Ongoing informal and face to face communication can be especially important when new individuals join the collaboration or when partners begin to lose interest at any point, when “personal contact through telephone or visits may revitalise interest” (p. 8).

Patscheke and Barmettler suggest that “frequent communication – both formal and informal – is essential to building trust among partners, without which any collaborative effort fails” (2014, para. 33). This is echoed by Alsalem (2010) in his statement that the social interaction that occurs during collaborative work impacts on the intellectual and the socio-emotional processes of participants as communication styles move from formal and impersonal to increasingly close and cohesive (pp. 1-2).

Interview participants emphasised the importance of ongoing communication in maintaining the momentum of collaborations:

I think we’d have regular conversations at least once a fortnight. I had no hesitation in giving [partner] a call or asking her about something. (n)

In between [meeting] times we are communicating by email all the time, yes. We keep in regular


64

contact about all sorts of day to day issues. (o)

I think clean, simple [goals] and communication are the good things that keep the collaboration and partnership right. (t)

I have found [other institute] extremely good to work with. What do I mean by that? I just mean that they are accessible, they’re helpful, they are responsible. (u)

The value of the ongoing contact that collaborators have as they go about their daily activities was also mentioned by one participant:

We have had just informal dialogue all the time by phone, email, in the stairwell, about how the students are progressing. (i)

The literature notes the availability of new online technologies to support collaboration at a distance. Karamat

research on the use of these technologies so it is not possible to draw any conclusions on their impact on maintaining collaborations. One interviewee had used an online workgroup system to enhance the communication project, and noted the importance of technological support for partners who are new to this way of working.

The other team members use One Drive…so that’s new to me. They [other partners] were keen to use it because they use it as an everyday thing. They’ve set us up and we are using it as facility now. A few people are telling me they can’t see this or that, but because the people who are driving that aspect of it are committed to making it work for us too, they’re fixing it within the hour. (c)

The value of face to face communication has already been

good deal of positivity in having face to face. (e)

I consider that the social side of the project is really, really important. The students do have to build relationships of trust with people. When they do the consultation meeting they have to look all those people in the eyes and say they are going to take on their suggestions. While remote processes can be beneficial I think that those face to face social interactions will always be really important. (g)

It’s about effecting change, and you don’t sit at a desk and type flash e-mails to effect change you know. You build relationships and you build that courage to do something differently. (d)

While technology was certainly a

In between meeting times we are communicating by email all the time. We keep in regular contact about all sorts of day to day issues.

and Petrova (2009), for example, describe the value of technologies available to support ongoing communication among members of a collaboration that enable a “collaborative workflow”. New generation tools such as blogging, various chat tools and wikis can bring about increased productivity and creativity and “social construction of knowledge” (p. 59). There are also various workgroup systems that allow a number of people to work on the same document simultaneously that also supports collaborative arrangements where people are able to work together while being based in different locations.

There is limited data from this

discussed earlier, as an integral facet of establishing collaborations, however, it should also be recognised in the context of managing and maintaining collaborations.

You get a much better contribution from people face to face when you’re wanting to sit around the table, rather than relaying things electronically when there’s a delay. (c)

While I think that collaboration could occur at a distance there are times when you need to meet and you need to discuss things. And there are thoughts and words that might not come out in email exchanges or from one to one phone calls. So I think there is a

useful tool to enable communication for teams working with members in different locations, participants felt that this could never fully replace the intimacy of face to face communication.

We use email, phone, we have [partner] who lives close to the project base so I communicate with him a lot. I also go up there, not as often as I would like to, to keep it alive and well. But yes it is definitely harder because of that distance, you aren’t bumping into them [partner] every day. The face to face thing is very important. (i)

We collaborated with people both here and in [another region]. It was a bit more challenging, I



Project

65

think, to collaborate with people who were at a distance. We had meetings by travelling to each other’s organisation, and by Skype and some kind of video conferencing, and it’s not the same, definitely not the same. Just thinking back on some of the video conferences, you have the conversation, but you don’t pick up exactly on what else is going on with other people. (b)

I think that you can make a certain amount of progress from e-mails

and things like that, absolutely. We can keep it moving, remotely, but [not] the progress that you make when you are sitting next to the people. So usually I spend five days down there, and the progress is immense. You can never replicate that remotely, not if you are Skyping, nothing like that…The difference is immense, I would put it that starkly. (r)

While remote processes can be beneficial I think that those face to face social interactions will always be really important.


66

3.5 SUMMARY

This section has presented the analysis of interviews with ITP staff involved in case study collaboration projects. The interview transcripts were examined for factors that supported successful collaboration as well as for pitfalls or issues that arose. Both the context of collaboration as well as the process of collaboration have been discussed here.

Interview data also forms the basis of the vignettes in Section 4. Featuring named institutions and specific projects, these vignettes support the analysis with specific examples of a range of collaborative initiatives by ITPs. The vignettes are followed by Section 5: Discussion and Key Findings.

The context of collaboration:

ª One area where ITPs collaborate with external stakeholders is in order to develop research confidence and capacity, such collaborations also increase the mana of the institute and may lead to further opportunities for collaborating.

ª Collaborations can lead to ‘engaged learning’ for students.

ª Community development purposes is a strong element of the ways that ITPs engage in collaboration, and networks are strengthened and developed in this way.

ª While increasing operating and resource efficiency is often the impetus behind particular collaborative projects, there are many other benefits, such as knowledge sharing, collegial support, and developing capacity, that also accrue.

The process of collaboration:

ª Having the right partners is a crucial element to establishing and maintaining collaborations; all partners need to have confidence that there is an equal, shared division of responsibility.

ª Mutual trust and respect, along with a shared passion and belief in the project are all noteworthy factors in successful partnerships.

ª Face to face communication is a key element at all stages, but particularly in the initial stages of the process.

ª Successful collaborations are adaptable to change, they are able to be flexible when the need arises.

ª Institutional commitment to the collaboration is important, and this might be through funding and resourcing, or through managerial recognition.

ª Leadership in successful collaborations may take on many forms: facilitation, organisational skills, co-leadership, a ‘champion’, distributed leadership, or a ‘Pollyanna’ style. However, ego is not a useful element.

ª Informal relationships and communication are significant for the process of establishing and maintaining effective collaborations.

It’s about effecting change, and you don’t sit at a desk and type flash e-mails to effect change. You build relationships and you build that courage to do something differently.



Project

67

VIGNETTES4

This section provides information about eight case study projects that feature some of the types of collaborative arrangements ITPs engage in. The institutes and their partner organisations are identified in the vignettes, as are the projects themselves. Permission was sought from each of the ITPs involved and participants were given the opportunity to comment on the text before it was included in the report. The vignettes are included here in alphabetical order according to project titles.


68

A UNIVERSITY CO-LOCATED ON A SHARED POLYTECHNIC CAMPUS: Bay of Plenty Polytechnic and University of Waikato

Partners: Bay of Plenty Polytechnic (BoPP), University of Waikato (UoW)

Description: Bay of Plenty Polytechnic and the University of Waikato work in a partnership sharing the Polytechnic’s two campuses in Tauranga in order to enhance the breadth of tertiary provision and pathways in the Bay of Plenty. The two institutions are able to deliver a number of programmes in partnership as well as the University delivering University of Waikato programmes, leasing space on the Tauranga campuses of Bay of Plenty Polytechnic.

Background In the early 1990s, local politicians in Tauranga/Western Bay of Plenty were keen for a university to be established in the sub-region. Bay of Plenty Polytechnic issued an invitation to the University of Waikato to utilise the existing Bay of Plenty Polytechnic facilities and services, where IT, Library and other infrastructure were already established. Ultimately the model transformed into the shared campus concept.

Outcomes/Benefits: Bay of Plenty Polytechnic offers a range of diploma-level qualifications where students who then have the ability to continue study with the University of Waikato to graduate with jointly delivered degrees. In fields of study where the polytechnic does not offer tuition the University of Waikato teaches full degree programmes in Tauranga from Bay of Plenty Polytechnic campuses. The Bay of Plenty Polytechnic delivers a small number of its own degree programmes where the University of Waikato has no existing capability. The arrangement gives the University of Waikato a significant presence in the Bay of Plenty with the added economic benefit of being able to establish in a location that had existing campus infrastructure. Bay of Plenty Polytechnic benefits by being able to offer their students a number of joint degree pathways and access to a wider range of programmes within the region.

What makes it work: The collaboration is a formal agreement to provide polytechnic and university education on campus locations owned by the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic. The collaboration was enabled by the pragmatic and economically sound benefits it offered to both institutions, but most importantly to students. The polytechnic was able to offer the university a financially attractive model without major capital infrastructure investment.

What resulted was a collaboration agreement between the Bay of Plenty Polytechnic and the University of Waikato involving pathways and shared delivery. This agreement has now expanded to become the Bay of Plenty Tertiary Education Partnership and in addition including Te Whare Wananga o Awanuiarangi and Waiariki Institute of Technology. The belief of Bay of Plenty Polytechnic was the institution was more capable of offering greater access and participation to a wider portfolio of tertiary provision for our people in the Bay of Plenty by working in partnership than by trying to do it alone and potentially in competition.



Project

69

BLENDED DELIVERY ARRANGEMENT – BACHELOR OF TEACHING (EARLY CHILDHOOD EDUCATION): An inter-ITP collaboration

Partners: UCOL and Open Polytechnic

Description: This collaboration involves two ITPs working together for the benefit of students studying on the Open Polytechnic Bachelor of Teaching (Early Childhood Education) degree. The students study the programme through the Open Polytechnic but are supported by additional face-to-face contact classes through UCOL’s campuses at Wairarapa, Whanganui, and Palmerston North. UCOL provide students with access to study sessions, library facilities and other campus student support services.

Background: This collaboration grew out of a need to provide students in the local community with an opportunity to study for a teaching degree without moving away to another centre. For some students studying by distance can be challenging as it requires students to be self-managing and motivated to meet study demands. Through the UCOL study groups students had the benefit of additional face to face interactions with peers and additional academic support from a UCOL tutor. The partnership has been particularly beneficial for adult learners who have not studied for a long time with very pleasing academic results and the majority of students graduating as teachers within the 3 year full time equivalent timeframe. There are also flow-on benefits to the community as many students find work in local early childhood centres.

Outcomes/Benefits: With the blended delivery approach there are many benefits: students can study flexibly in their local community; regular face to face classes are available to support their studies and build academic skills; they are more likely to be retained in their local community as teachers when they graduate and it ensures a supply of qualified teachers in these communities. Best of all students have achieved solid grades and pass rates.

What made it work: The collaborators believe it is important to have the same aspirations and the same passion to make it work.

“The people you work with are important, more than the organisation, it is our relationship with each other.”


70

COMMUNITY IMPACTS OF THE RENA DISASTER: Collaborative research with local government

Partners:Bay of Plenty (BOP) Polytechnic, University of Waikato, Bay of Plenty Regional Council

Description: A researcher in BOP Polytechnic’s Taiorangahau Pacific Coast Applied Research Centre carried out social science research alongside University of Waikato and Bay of Plenty Regional Council on the community impacts of the Rena disaster.

Background:In October 2011 the Tauranga-bound cargo ship Rena hit the Astrolabe reef and leaked large amounts of oil and waste into the Tauranga Harbour and Bay of Plenty coast. A BOP Polytechnic researcher approached University of Waikato colleagues and then the Bay of Plenty Regional Council about the opportunity to carry out research on the experiences of the volunteers involved in cleaning up the oil spill. A joint research group was established between these three organisations.

Outcomes/Benefits:The relationship of trust and respect that developed with the key contact at Bay of Plenty Regional Council over the process of this project has led to other joint research projects. The project has also led to stronger connections between individual researchers at BOP Polytechnic and the University of Waikato: “It’s also about establishing as a polytech that we can do credible research, alongside a university.”

What made it work: At the core of the collaboration was the strong interest in researching the volunteer programme from all three organisations, including the regional council contact who was ‘very, very enthusiastic’. The members of the joint research group had regular face to face meetings to exchange information, which made collaboration easier. The importance of a passionate engagement with the project was also key to the success of the collaboration: “what was really good about our research team was that everyone was personally affected by the topic as well…it made a big difference in terms of the interest and commitment that everybody had to the project”.



Project

71

ITP LIBRARY COLLABORATION – An Inter-ITP collaboration

Partners: SIT and many other ITPs

Description: This collaboration involves the libraries of many ITPs working together to purchase access to online databases.

Background: ITP library staff gather at different venues around the country annually. Informal discussions at one of these meetings many years ago led to the realisation that all of the libraries were using the same or similar databases in their collections. A consortium was formed specifically for the purpose of negotiating a better deal with the publishers of a nursing database. This led to other databases being purchased, and now the consortia are an established part of the way ITP libraries work.

Outcomes/Benefits: The primary benefit here is a financial one: the ITP libraries are able to negotiate a better deal with the publishers by working together. However there are other benefits as well. The collaboration has meant that library staff have many people to call upon to answer questions, and for help and support with all kinds of day to day issues. “It might be somebody who’s decided to stop fining students or to increase their library hours or decrease their library hours, and then they ask what everybody else is doing.” The collaboration is a valued part of being a professional librarian due to the collegial support network it offers. “It’s very important for me to be a part of this group.”

What made it work: The excellent communication in the library sector is an element that plays a large role in the success of this collaboration. “We’re a very tight knit group, we always seem to be communicating with one another.” The clear benefits for all involved are another reason why it has been effective. “This is just something we’ve done because we benefit from it, and it has worked for us.”


72

NORTHTEC DEDICATED EDUCATION UNIT: Collaboration between an ITP and a regional service provider

Partners: NorthTec, Northland District Health Board

Description: The Dedicated Education Unit (DEU) provides a focused teaching and learning environment for student nurses to learn in and experience the clinical environment. It operates as a formal and enduring collaboration between NorthTec and the Northland District Health Board (NDHB) as the regional clinical provider.

Background: The DEU model is being successfully used in a number of regions around New Zealand. Key NorthTec staff approached one section of the NDHB to partner in developing the first DEU in Northland. Both institutions contribute to teaching with the aims of offering more clinical placements for students and ensuring consistent assessment practices and greater communication between hospital staff and tutors.

Outcomes/Benefits: Nurse graduates are more likely to be employed locally and remain in their communities. “We needed to work really strongly in partnership, so here’s an education facility and there’s an employer, let’s try and meet each other’s needs…And over the years, that has actually come to fruition and they positively recruit NorthTec graduates.” Student nurses have more supportive, high quality clinical training experiences, NDHB staff are keen to take students on placement and tutors have seen an improvement in student clinical confidence.

What makes it work: There is strong commitment from staff at both organisations and a unique common goal that provides obvious benefits to all stakeholders including students. The project is cost-neutral and underpinned by a formal partnership agreement. A strong foundation was laid in the early stages of the collaboration when expectations of participants and potential problems were worked through. Another key success point is having a leader who is committed to facilitating an inclusive, collaborative process, and who took the time to build support in the establishment phase. At the same time this “go slow” approach, with its focus on gaining “complete buy-in” from all staff involved, is supported by a structured timeline with a clear outcome that prevents the collaborative process from simply drifting.



Project

73

SOUTHERN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY (SIT) AND TE WĀNANGA AOTEAROA: An ITP collaboration with another tertiary education organisation

Partners: SIT and Te Wānanga Aotearoa

Description: This collaboration between an ITP and a Wānanga, sees the Southern Institute of Technology delivering Māori language and cultural programmes at its campuses in Southland. In conjunction with Te Wānanga o Aotearoa, SIT offers pathways ranging from beginner level courses that promote learning and understanding of the Māori language, arts and culture through to diploma level study. The collaboration celebrated its ten year anniversary in 2013, and continues to grow and expand.

Background: This collaboration developed from the need to fill a gap in a local community. In 2003 when the collaboration began, the wānanga was emerging as a private provider of training in Māori language in the Southland region. It was looking to expand its programmes and at the same time SIT was looking to develop its programmes in this area. There was a great deal of consultation with the local community and the SIT kaumatua also played a significant role in the process. This led to the wānaga delivering several programmes in Māori language and culture to students and staff at SIT’s Invercargill and Gore campuses.

Outcomes/Benefits: Learners in the Southland community are now able to access these programmes through SIT’s Zero Fees scheme. “I think it has added really strong cultural enrichment. I think there are probably more people who identify as Māori around the institute. And I think it is encouraging other staff to think about how they may change their teaching and learning approaches.” The presence of the Wānanga at SIT has added a more bicultural element to the campus. “Because the Wānanga staff have expertise, they are the sources of knowledge in that area.”

What made it work: The respect that each of the collaborating partners has for each other is a significant part of the success of the project. “The Wānanga has values that are very strongly embedded in respect and consideration for others and the importance of valuing the Māori culture.” Another element that contributed to the strength of the collaboration was the way the local community was consulted with: “The discussion was held around what would really be beneficial to the Māori community of Southland, and our kaumatua, because of his links with the local community in Southland, was a kind of interface, and he was able to identify and pinpoint the sorts of areas that would really benefit the people of Southland.”


74

SUSTAINABLE RURAL DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME AND CERTIFICATES IN HORTICULTURE: Delivering training programmes in collaboration with marae

Partners: NorthTec, Marae Trusts and Community Boards

Description: NorthTec delivers the Sustainable Rural Development Programme and National Certificates in Horticulture across Northland within local communities and marae. This involves working in close collaboration with marae trusts, hapu, iwi and local community boards.

Background: Northland has many remote communities and high levels of unemployment. The rural development and horticulture programmes were developed to provide opportunities for vocational training on local marae or community facilities without the need to travel long distances.

Outcomes/Benefits: Marae trust boards and local community boards have requested the programmes be delivered to assist their communities by upskilling community members, teaching people how to grow food locally in a sustainable way, encouraging young people back to the marae and potentially providing land-based employment opportunities. Local course delivery assists people in remote communities to engage with tertiary education, many for the first time. NorthTec also enters into site agreements to use the local facilities, including negotiation of a rental, and provides equipment and support as needed.

What makes it work: High levels of communication and trust have been established between NorthTec staff and communities over time and this is a key success factor. Developing that trust, and ensuring that relationships are established with the most appropriate representatives in each community, has taken time: “you have to deal with each and every one of them, because each and every one of them will have different needs. So that’s why we work with them individually.” Programmes are tailored to suit the specific aims of each community and course content is delivered in collaboration with marae or community groups. The NorthTec staff involved are passionate about providing education and employment opportunities for Northlanders within Northland, and in partnership with local people.



Project

75

TE PUMANAWA – TE REO APP: Polytechnic collaboration with industry

Partners: Waiariki and Māori Multimedia

Description: This collaboration between an ITP and a private company, Māori Multimedia, saw the two partners working together on the development of a Mobile app for the instruction of Māori language. Te Pumanawa is a mobile education app designed for learning Māori language and culture. The app has interactive video clips, quizzes, games and is touch-screen activated. Waiariki delivers an NZQA approved 30 credit course in te reo via the Te Pumanawa app.

Background: This collaboration developed from an existing relationship between Dr Rāpata Wiri of Māori Multimedia and staff at Waiariki. With many of Waiariki’s students identifying as Māori, there has always been a high demand for language programmes. “Te reo programmes are a significant part of Waiariki’s portfolio.” Staff identified a gap in the market for an app that would teach Māori language but also would offer formal recognition of this as the course is a Short Award programme recognised by NZQA. The programme is based on the principles of heutagogy, or self-determined learning where the learning is not teacher-centric or curriculum-centric, but rather learner-centric.

Outcomes/Benefits: The app delivers te reo to students throughout Aotearoa/New Zealand as well as corporate clients. One feature of the app that has made it such a success is the way that speaking assessments can be recorded in privacy, this has been commented on by those enrolled in the course. As well as providing a programme that can be accessed anywhere, anytime, the collaboration itself has brought benefits and insights to those involved. “Collaborations like this open a door to people understanding how to raise that capacity of collaboration even more.”

What made it work: Those involved in the collaboration stress the significance of building and maintaining strong relationships with fellow partners. “If you cannot build a family sense within a collaboration I don’t think you’ll do as well. It comes down to creating that whānau, that family of practice.”


76

“Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.”– Helen Keller

5DISCUSSION AND

KEY FINDINGS

The ITP Collaboration Report captures the diversity of collaboration that occurs within the ITP sector in Aotearoa/New Zealand. The report has brought together data collected from questionnaires and case study interviews, provided by a wide variety of staff both academic and general, from nine institutes of technology and polytechnics throughout the country.

This research project has demonstrated the many and varied ways that ITPs engage with

other tertiary institutes, with their communities and with industry and employers. It has shown that ITPs benefit from collaborative practices in a myriad of ways including building staff research capacity and confidence, enhancing business and community development, developing links with employers and with iwi and hapu, giving students opportunities to grow through workplace experience, and creating greater efficiency in the use of resources.

The research has also shared the knowledge and practical experiences of ITP staff working to establish and maintain collaborations with other institutes and external organisations.

This section of the report discusses aspects of their shared wisdom and offers a summary of the findings of the research. It also suggests some areas for future research.



Project

77

5.1DISCUSSION

5.1.1 The benefits of collaborative ways of workingIt is clear from the questionnaire and interview data that ITPs place a high value on seeking and supporting collaborative relationships, in particular those they believe will contribute to enhancing student success. Participants expressed enthusiasm for the projects they had been involved in and for the value of inter-organisational collaboration in general. Even allowing for the focus of the research on successful collaborative arrangements, the results show that ITPs see collaboration not only as ‘normal business’ but also as ‘good sense’ and worth the time and resources needed to establish and sustain them.

Even where the costs in time and resourcing were perceived as being relatively high, participants still agreed that their collaborations were effective. This was consistent across both questionnaire and interview data. Some projects discussed by interview participants involved large amounts of negotiation, organisation or travel and yet were considered to be successful and worth the resource input from the ITPs.

Research participants demonstrated an awareness of the value they could add to their local and regional communities. Collaborations were based on a drive to achieve mutual benefits and to grow social and economic capacity. The literature on collaboration suggests that educational institutes need to see their community partners as equals and not simply as sources of research data or student work experience placements and certainly the data from this project indicates that ITPs are aware of this and place a high priority on working constructively with industry, iwi and communities in a way that provides benefits to all stakeholders.

The data from this research also demonstrates that ITPs are successfully collaborating with other TEOs, and particularly with other ITPs. Responses to the questionnaires found that collaborations between ITPs were the most common type of collaboration, and the case study interviews provided more detail on a number of successful arrangements. There were a smaller number of collaborations with the university sector and one successful example of this was discussed in the analysis of the case study interviews. Such collaborations were movitated by a number of practical considerations including: a need for research partners; the reduction in competition between ITPs, and opening up opportunities to share resources or EFTs.

The findings also highlight that staff involved in collaborations consistently place the needs of students in the forefront of their projects. Students are the key stakeholders in collaborative projects that ITPs are engaged in, even when they are not directly involved in these projects. Participants indicated that students benefited from collaborative relationships by enhanced teaching and learning opportunities and through engagement with potential employers and wider communities.

The benefits participants identified from collaborative


78

arrangements they were involved in were:

ª one collaboration was likely to lead to further collaborative relationships with the same partner organisations;

ª increased public profile and status of the institutes;

ª increased levels of trust and understanding among partner organisations;

ª shared knowledge and skills;

ª enhanced teaching through a greater awareness of employer or stakeholder needs;

ª greater employment opportunities for graduates;

ª upskilling and capacity building for ITP staff;

ª improved research capacity and confidence, and

ª mutual development of institutes and the communities that they are part of.

5.1.2 Resourcing and supporting collaborationQuestionnaire and interview participants make it clear that, even with the benefits of collaboration, it takes fortitude and patience to establish and maintain collaborative relationships and to meet project timelines. Collaborative ways of working need to be adequately resourced and supported by the home institute, and staff need to feel that the work they do to to develop and sustain these relationships is appreciated.

It is also worth noting that, although the definition of ‘collaboration’ in this research was kept very broad to embrace even highly informal relationships, the collaborative projects referred to in the questionnaires and interviews were most likely to be formalised arrangements, that is, they involved some kind of signed agreement or memorandum of understanding. Based on the data here, therefore, it would appear that formalised collaborations are the mode of choice for ITP sector collaboration.

5.1.3 Challenges to collaborationParticipants identified time and resource constraints, the difficulties in travelling between partners located at a distance, gaps in communication and lack of support or appreciation from senior managers at home institutes as the main challenges to establishing and maintaining collaborations. In addition to these immediate challenges participants also noted two general or environmental factors that could hinder collaborative efforts. The first of these was the challenge of collaborating with other ITPs and tertiary institutes in what remains a relatively competitive educational environment. The approach taken by participants in this research was that collaboration was sufficiently important to be pursued even in the face of difficulties. Professional networks and strong individual relationships that extended across institutes were seen as important factors in overcoming difficulties, as was a willingness to address the issue of competition openly with other institutes and the clear identification of mutual benefits.

The second environmental challenge was what participants perceived as a changeable and even unpredictable regulatory environment where changes to government tertiary policy could undercut the goals of collaborative arrangements. Collaborations need to be based on clear written agreements and the partners need to have deep relationships to be able to adapt to these changes.



Project

79

5.2SUMMARY OF FINDINGS: WHAT MAKES FOR SUCCESSFUL ITP SECTOR COLLABORATION?

This section provides a summary of the lessons drawn from the literature and from the data collected from questionnaires and interviews with ITP participants. The summary takes the form of a range of suggestions for what makes for successful collaborative relationships.

Successful collaborations:

ª enabled institutions to maintain their independence within the collaboration;

ª distributed the work fairly among partners;

ª were able to adapt to changing conditions;

ª were ones where partners had a clear sense of their roles and responsibilities;

ª had a clear shared goal or purpose;

ª were made up of cooperative and highly engaged partners;

ª had some informal contact with external partners outside of organised meetings;

ª involved face to face contact with external partners at least occasionally;

ª shared resources and costs fairly;

ª involved partners with similar values or compatible ways of working;

ª maintained a sense of equality and equitable access to information and decision-making responsibility;

Factors that support successful establishment of collaborations:

ª Collaborations are based on formal agreements between partners. This may be a memorandum of understanding at senior management level, or a more simple arrangement with a contracts or terms of reference signed by project members.

ª ITP partner organisations of choice are those that enhance the reputation of their institutions or that share a common vision or purpose with their institutions.

ª It is easier to establish a collaborative project with organisations that an ITP, or the individual staff members, has existing contacts with or has successfully collaborated with in the past.

ª The ability to capitalise on opportunities to develop collaborative relationships relies on ITP staff who are embedded in their communities and attuned to possibilities.

ª Developing a mutual understanding of concepts or ‘shared language’ between partners, especially when working with community or business organisations that are not familiar with the tertiary sector.


80

ª Establishing a clear, shared goal or mission statement helps to focus collaborative efforts at the outset.

ª Face to face contact with partners to help build rapport and trust, particularly in the early stages to establish common goals and understandings.

ª There is value in all partners agreeing to a written code of conduct or working agreement that can be referred to in times of conflict.

ª Issues around resourcing input, the roles of organisations and individuals in the collaboration and leadership need to be explicitly addressed and agreed upon.

ª Explicitly considering the process of collaboration in its earliest stages including addressing such matters as: what motivates each partners; where the balance of power lies; how disagreements will be addressed; how tasks and resources will be fairly distributed and how decisions will be made.

Factors that help maintain a collaboration:

ª Realistic expectations of the resources needed to establish and maintain a collaborative project, especially the time commitment.

ª Clear support from ITP management of collaborative arrangements and trust in ITP representatives taking part in the collaborations.

ª Ongoing and timely communication including quick responses to emails or written correspondence.

ª At least some ongoing face to face contact between partners.

ª Jointly establishing a realistic project timeline that aligns with the needs and demands of individual partner organisations.

ª Working to agreed deadlines and meeting targets.

ª Recognising the efforts and contributions made by team members.

ª Sharing the rewards and jointly celebrating successes.

Deep collaborations:

ª are fully embedded and long term inter-organisational partnerships between ITPs and external partners;

ª do not rely on the input of particular individuals but can

weather changes in personnel and the wider socio-political environment;

ª involve the development of a new entity with a common mission and goals that are unique to that partnership;

ª are mutually beneficial processes in which each organisation enhances the capacity of partner organisations to achieve a common purpose;

ª allow for the full sharing of responsibilities and rewards;

ª are supported by high levels of communication, both formal and informal, among partners;

ª are well suited to tackle complex and interdependent issues that no single organisation can resolve;

ª have a shared measurement system for reporting on success of the project, which allows participants to hold each other accountable and learn from each other;

ª can be reinforced by developing a shared measurement system for reporting on success of the project, which allows participants to hold each other accountable and learn from each other, and

ª work best when they include backbone or additional support and coordination that takes the burden for this off individual organisations.



Project

81

5.3RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

Participation was limited to ITP staff and so the findings do not reflect the experiences of the other partners involved in these collaborative projects. There would be value in carrying out further research that included participants from all the organisations involved in collaborative projects. Additionally this research focused on successful collaborative projects as self-selected by the ITPs involved. Future research could analyse projects that were considered to be unsuccessful in order to determine what causes collaborations to fail.

Only a very small number of questionnaire participants indicated international organisations as collaborative partners, and there were no case studies of international collaborations. Given the growing internationalisation of tertiary education the effective establishment and management of international collaborative projects would also be a fruitful area for future research.


82

REFERENCES

Alsalem, K. (2010). Investigating factors and characteristics of the use of e-collaboration tools in research collaboration (Master’s thesis). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10523/337 University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Amey, M.J., Eddy, P.L. & Ozaki, C.C. (2007). Demand for partnership and collaboration in higher education: a model. New Directions for Community Colleges, 139, 5-14. Retrieved from http://communitycollegeoverview.wmwikis.net/file/view/

Anderson, B., Brown, M., Murray, F., Simpson, M. & Mentis, M. (2006). Global picture, local lessons: e-learning policy and accessibility. Wellington, New Zealand: Ministry of Education. Retrieved from http://www.educationcounts.govt.nz/publications/ict/58144

Brown, C. (2004). Characteristics of successful partnerships between libraries, schools, and community agencies. Library Philosophy and Practice, 6, 2, 1-14. Retrieved from http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~mbolin/cbrown.pdf

Brownlow, S. (2012). Work together to harness higher education’s potential. University World News, 246 (4 November). Retrieved from http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20121101175010941

Brudney, J.L., Cho, C & Wright, D.S. (2009). Understanding the collaborative public manager: exploring contracting patterns and performance for service delivery by state administrative agencies in 1998 and 2004. In R. O’Leary & L. B. Bingham (Eds.), The collaborative public manager. New ideas for the twenty-first century (pp.117-

135). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Butcher, P., Holleyoak, A. & Sutherland, R. (2012). Harmonisation in building and construction qualifications: Developing a business case for meaningful collaboration. Wellington, New Zealand: Ako Aotearoa, National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence. Retrieved from http://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/ako-aotearoa/ako-aotearoa/resources/files/harmonisation-building-and-construction-qualifications

Graddy, E. A., & Chen, B. (2009). Partner selection and the effectiveness of interorganisational collaborations. In R. O’Leary & L. Bingham (Eds.), The collaborative public manager: New ideas for the twenty-first century, (pp. 53-69). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Chinlund, E.M., Shaw, A., McKay, J., Appleby, P., Davis, K., Manderson, M. & Kirkland, G. (2011). Regional collaborative development of a degree preparation programme. Wellington, New Zealand: AKO Aotearoa – The National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence.

Clear, T. (2008, June). Global collaboration in course delivery: are we there yet? Inroads – SIGCSE Bulletin, 40 (2), 11-12.

Clements, C. & Roberts, S. (2008). Learning through communities of practice: A strategic and collaborative approach. Wellington, New Zealand: Victoria University of Wellington. Retrieved from http://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10063/381/paper.pdf?sequence=2

Collaborating Efficiency Project. (2003). Collaborating for efficiency:



Project

83

Report of the steering group. Retrieved from http://www.tec.govt.nz/Resource-Centre/

Corich, S. (2006). The case for an ITP collaborative computing degree. In S. Mann, & M. Lopez (Eds.) 19th Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications (pp. 61-66). Retrieved from http://www.citrenz.ac.nz/conferences/2006/papers/61corich.pdf

Czajkowski, J. (2007). Leading successful inter-institutional collaboration using the collaboration success measurement model. Retrieved from http://www.chairacademy.com/conference/2007/papers/leading_successful_interinstitutional_collaborations.pdf

Debowski, S. (2008). Collaboration and community: building strength in tertiary education. Engaging Communities, Proceedings of the 31st HERDSA Annual Conference, Rotorua, 1-4 July 2008 (pp. 42-52). Retrieved from http://www.herdsa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/conference/2008/papers/Debowski.pdf

Finnerty, C. (2005). An exploratory study of collaboration in New Zealand tertiary libraries. AARL, 228-239.

Fraser, L. (2008). Core content for a collaborative NZ ITP computing/IT degree. In S. Mann & M. Lopez (Eds.) 21st Annual Conference of the National Advisory Committee on Computing Qualifications (pp. 51-58). Retrieved from http://www.citrenz.ac.nz/?page_id=157

Gazley, B. & Brudney, J. L. (2007). The purpose (and perils) of government-nonprofit partnership. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 36 (3), 389-415.

Glassey, S. (2008). Developing a collaborative educational pathway for emergency management education in New Zealand. Palmerston North, New Zealand: Emergency Management Academy of New Zealand. Retrieved from http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Colleges/College%20of%20Humanities%20and%20Social%20Sciences/Psychology/Disasters/pubs/projects_130-703/Glassey-2008_Collaborative_Education_Pathway.pdf

Hay, K. (2011). Can collaboration and competition co-exist? Building a cross-institutional community of practice. Asia-Pacific Journal of Cooperative Education, 12(1), 31-38. Retrieved from http://www.apjce.org/files/APJCE_12_1_31_38.pdf

Himmelman, A.T. (2002). Collaboration for a change. Definitions, decision-making models, roles, and collaborative process guide. Retrieved from http://www.dttac.org/services/DPCP_101/pdfs/Collaboration_for_a_Change.pdf

Holland, B. & Ramaley, J.A. (2008). Creating a supportive environment for community-university engagement: conceptual frameworks. Engaging Communities, Proceedings of the 31st HERDSA Annual Conference, Rotorua, 1-4 July 2008 (pp. 33-47). Retrieved from http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/153059548?versionId=166810061

Honeyfield, J., Fraser, C., Shaw, S., Reid, P., McMillan, A., Fester, V.,…Fitchett, L. (2010). Collaborative national evaluation of Signposts: A professional development resource for new tertiary teachers. Wellington, New Zealand: Ako Aotearoa National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence. Retrieved from https://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/signposts

Humanitarian Futures Programme (HFP) & International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA) (n.d.). Gaining the future: collaboration guidelines for 21st century humanitarian organisations. Retrieved from http://www.humanitarianfutures.org/sites/default/files/Gaining%20the%20Future%20-%20An%20HFP-ICVA%20Guide_0.pdf

Jones, S. & Clulow, S. (2012, August 2). How to foster a culture of collaboration between universities and industry. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/higher-education-network

Kania, J. & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 93. Retrieved from http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/collective_impact

Karamat, P. & Petrova, K. (2009). Collaborative trends in higher education. Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, 7(2), 57-62. Retrieved from http://www.iiisci.org/Journal/CV$/sci/pdfs/ZE531UV.pdf

Karatzoglou, B. (2012). An in-depth literature review of the evolving roles and contributions of universities to education for sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 49, 1-10 doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2012.07.043

Kezar, A. (2005). Redesigning for collaboration within higher education institutions: An exploration into the development process. Research in Higher Education, 46 (7), 831-860 doi: 10.1007/s11162-004-6227-5

Lavie-Ajayi, M., Holmes, D. & Jones, C. (2007). ‘We thought we “knew”, so we “did”’: A voluntary organization’s beginnings in action research. Action Research, 5, 407-429 doi: 10.1177/1476750307 19


84

Mattessich, P., Murray-Close, M., & Monsey, B.R. (2001a). Collaboration: What makes it work. (2nd ed.). Saint Paul, MN: Amherst H. Wilder Foundation.

Mattessich, P., Murray-Close, M., & Monsey, B.R. (2001b). Wilder collaboration factors inventory. Retrieved from http://wilderresearch.org/tools/cfi/index.php

Mattessich, P. (2003). Can this collaboration be saved? Twenty factors that can make or break any group effort. NHI [National Housing Institute] Shelterforce Online, 129 (May/June). Retrieved from http://www.nhi.org/online/issues/129/savecollab.html

Merchant, N. (2011, December 1). Eight dangers of collaboration. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2011/12/eight-dangers-of-collaboration

Middleton, S. (2014a, November 24). Getting education and training to work [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.stuartmiddleton.co.nz/

Middleton, S. (2014b, December 10). Working with business is good business for education [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.stuartmiddleton.co.nz/

Ministry of Education (n.d.). Tertiary Education Strategy 2010-2015. Retrieved from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/TertiaryEducation/PolicyAndStrategy/TertiaryEducationStrategy.aspx

Ministry of Education (MoE) & Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (MBIE). (2014). New Zealand Tertiary Education Strategy 2014-2019. Retrieved from http://www.minedu.govt.nz/NZEducation/EducationPolicies/TertiaryEducation/PolicyAndStrategy/TertiaryEducationStrategy2014-2019.aspx

National Network for Collaboration. (1995). Collaborative networks are the organisation. Retrieved from http://www.druckersociety.at/repository/scientific/Shuman.pdf

Nye, N., Schramm, R., Seessel, T., Freiberg, B., Gomez. L. & Waters, J. (2005). Building Higher Education Community Development Corporation Partnerships. Retrieved from http://community-wealth.org/content/building-higher-education-community-development-corporation-partnerships

O’Carroll, A. D. (2014). Kanohi ki te kanohi – A thing of the past? Examining the notion of “virtual” ahikãand the implications for kanohi ki te kanohi. Pimatisiwin: A Journal of Aboriginal & Indigenous Community Health, 11(3), 441-455.

O’Leary, R., Gazley, B. McGuire, M. & Bingham, L.B. (2009). Public managers in collaboration. In R. O’Leary & L.B. Bingham (Eds.). The collaborative public manager: New ideas for the twenty-first century (pp. 1-12). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Patscheke, S., Barmettler, A., Herman, L., Overdyke, S. & Pfitzer, M. (2014). Shaping global partnerships for a post-2015 world. Stanford Social Innovation Review. Retrieved from http://www.ssireview.org/articles/entry/shaping_global_partnerships_for_a_post_2015_world

Peters, G.B. (2008). Group collaboration in education. Encyclopedia of Information Technology Curriculum Integration, 1, 93-98.

Pisano, G.P. & Verganti, R. (2008). Which kind of collaboration is right for you? Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from http://downloads.avaya.com/css/P8/documents/100151138

Shepherd, M. (2004). Library collaboration: what makes it work? (Keynote paper). In Proceedings of the IATUL Conferences. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/iatul/2004/papers/47

Tertiary Education Commission (TEC). (2014). General plan guidance for 2015 and 2016: Guidance for TEOs seeking plan-based funding from the TEC from 1 January 2015. Retrieved from

http://www.tec.govt.nz/About-us/News/TEC-Now/Plan-guidance-2014/

Tertiary Education Commission (TEC). (2010). Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics 2012. Retrieved from http://www.tec.govt.nz/Funding/plan-guidance/Information-for-organisations/Institutes-of-Technology-and-Polytechnics-ITPs/

Thompson, A., Perry, J. & Miller, T. (2007). Conceptualizing and measuring collaboration. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 23-35. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum036

Thompson, C. (2014, February 3). Rereading “collective impact”: Three lessons. [Web log post]. Retrieved from http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/rereading_collective_impact_three_lessons

Tschirhart, M., Amezcua, A. & Anker, A. (2009). Resource sharing: how resource attributes influence sharing system choices. In R. O’Leary & Bingham, L.B. (Eds.). The collaborative public manager: New ideas for the twenty-first century (pp. 15-29). Washington DC: Georgetown University Press.

Turner, S., Merchant, K., Kania, J. & Martin, E. (2012a). Understanding the value of backbone organizations in collective impact: Part 2. Retrieved from http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/understanding_the_value_of_backbone_organizations_in_collective_impact_2

Turner, S., Merchant, K., Kania, J. & Martin, E. (2012b). Understanding the value of backbone organizations in collective impact: Part 4. Retrieved from http://www.ssireview.org/blog/entry/understanding_the_value_of_backbone_organizations_in_collective_impact_4

Walker, U. & vom Brocke, C. (2009). Integrating content based language learning and intercultural learning online: an international eGroups collaboration. In A. Brown (Ed.). Proceedings of CLESOL 2008 (pp.218-235). Retrieved from hhtp://hdl.handle.net/10179/1591



Project

85


86

APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE



Project

87

APPENDIX 1: QUESTIONNAIRE ITP SECTOR COLLABORATION PRACTICES: STOCK-TAKE QUESTIONNAIREThe purpose of this questionnaire is to gain a full picture of the many ways in which Institutes of Technology and Polytechnics (ITPs) collaborate with other ITPs and with a whole range of organisations, in order to: enhance the quality of teaching and learning, share knowledge and stimulate creativity, or increase efficiency in the use of resources.

This questionnaire seeks information on the range of stakeholders ITPs are working with, the sorts of collaboration approaches taken, and how collaborative arrangements are managed. We will use the information from the questionnaire to create a full picture of the many ways in which institutions like yours work together with other ITPs, and with other stakeholders such as schools, local and central government agencies, universities, wananga, iwi or regional employers.

We ask for your assistance in making this project successful. We hope that you will take the time to complete the questionnaire and help us create a

comprehensive picture of the range and value of the multiple collaborative initiatives that your institution is involved in.

What do we mean by ‘collaborations’?

Collaborations can be formal (with written contracts or partnership agreements, or joint ventures or research bids), or more informal (such as networking, regular information-sharing or cooperation). They may extend over many years, or be one-off projects or one-day workshops. They can occur for a wide range of purposes such as:

ª joint marketing

ª research

ª community outreach

ª reducing costs or competition

ª for resources

ª providing library or information services

ª delivering joint

ª programmes with other ITPs

ª gaining employer input into course design (eg advisory boards)

ª supporting student employment or work experience

ª improving service delivery

ª or administrative efficiency

We are keen to learn about all these kinds of collaborations and many others.

Please complete a separate form for each collaboration. (If the collaboration is on-going, or incomplete, then please answer questions based on progress to date.)

This research has been approved by the SIT Human Research Ethics Committee. No individual or institution will be identified in any way in the final report. Please be aware that you may decide not to take part in the project at any time without any disadvantage to yourself or your institution.

1 Please give your collaborative project a name: for example, ‘The Kids Concerts Series’, ‘Joint On-line Environmental Management Certificate Programme’, or ‘Programme Advisory Committee’.

2 In 3 sentences or less, please briefly describe your project.


88

3 How many different partners or organisations (including your own institution) are represented in this collaborative relationship?

О 2

О 3-5

О 6-10

О More than 10

4 Please indicate which of the following best describes your employment.

О Tutor/lecturer

О Programme Manager

О Department Head/Manager

О Management

О Financial officer

О Administrator

О Librarian

О Researcher

О Other (please specify)

5 Which of the following sectors or types of organisations are involved in this particular collaboration? Please tick all that apply.

� Another polytechnic or institute of technology

� University

� Wananga

� Private Training Organisation

� Industry Training Organisation

� Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

� Other central government department or agency (e.g. Ministry of Education, Tertiary Education Commission, NZQA)

� Local government

� Local business

� National business

� Non-profit organisation or trust

� Business sector advocate (e.g. local Chamber of Commerce)

� Other sector advocate (e.g. Federated Farmers)

� Church/Religious Group

� Iwi representatives or group

� Sports trust or club

� Secondary school sector

� Primary school sector

� Early childhood sector

� Manufacturing and/or services sector

� Post-graduate/alumni of my institution who are located within New Zealand

� Post-graduate/alumni of my institution who are located outside of New Zealand

� Other (please specify)



Project

89

9 What were the main motivations for establishing this collaboration? Please choose all that apply.

� To meet governmental or formal institutional requirements

� Community service and/or outreach by my institution

� Marketing and profile raising by my institution

� Seeking funding or investment

� Marketing and profile raising for the outside partner(s)

� Reducing transaction costs (e.g. legal or administrative costs)

� Sharing of good practice with other tertiary providers

� Seeking skills, expertise and/or equipment not available inside my institution

� Sharing liability

� Building relationships for intended future collaboration with partner(s)

� Staff training or personal development

� Student learning and/or employment training

� Resolving teaching or learning issues

� Ensuring input into external political or community decision making

� Increasing institutional credibility

� Participation in, or representation on, inter-agency education or management group

� Conflict avoidance or resolution

� Improved student retention and completion

� Increasing student numbers

� Other (please specify)

6 Where are your external collaboration partners located? Please choose all that apply.

О Local (same town or city as your institution)

О Regional (same region as your institution)

О National (within New Zealand but outside your region)

О International (please specify)

7 What is the main purpose of this collaboration? Please choose one.

О Its purpose is to enhance the quality of teaching and learning at my institution.

О Its purpose is to share knowledge and increase creativity at my institution.

О Its purpose is to increase efficiency of resources at my institution.

8 How formal is the structure of this collaboration?

Please indicate the level of formality on the scale below, from 1 (very informal) to 6 (very formal).

1

Very informal

(no signed agreement;

low key or no leadership)

2 3 4 5 6

Very formal

(Legally binding partnership agreement;

signed by top management eg CEOs)

О О О О О О


90

10 How important were the following factors in determining the choice of partner(s) in your collaboration? Please rate each from 1 (not important) to 4 (very important). If you don’t know or if the statement does not apply to your collaboration, please tick the last column.

1

Not important

at all

2

Of little importance

3

Of some importance

4

Very important

5

applicable or Don’t

know

We need to work with this partner/s to secure funding.

O O O O O

The partner(s) shares a common vision/purpose with our institute.

O O O O O

We could find no other alternative partner(s). O O O O O

The partner(s) has contacts and/or expertise we wanted to access.

O O O O O

We have successfully collaborated with the partner(s) in the past.

O O O O O

To meet specific cultural or linguistic needs. O O O O O

To enhance our institute’s reputation by working with this partner/these partners.

O O O O O

An individual at our institution has an established relationship with the partner(s).

O O O O O

To meet Central Government requirements. O O O O O

The need to access particular equipment or specialised expertise that the partner(s) has.

O O O O O

11 What are your most frequent modes of communication with your partners? Please choose no more than three. Please choose no more than three.

� Text messages

� Fax

� Face to face (e.g. meetings)

� Email

� Phone calls

� Postal mail

� Social media (e.g. Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter)

� Other online methods (e.g. forums, wikis or clouds)

� Skype or similar internet call



Project

91

13 This section focuses on the process of the collaboration. Please give your opinion on each of the following statements, from 1 (disagree) to 3 (agree). If you don’t know or if the statement does not apply to your collaboration, please tick the last column.

1

Disagree

2

Somewhat agree

3

Agree

Not applicable or

Don’t know

Collaborating with outside partners has increased the amount of time spent on this project/arrangement.

O O O O

Collaborating with outside partners has increased the financial costs of the project/arrangement.

O O O O

The external partners of this collaboration are the right ones to make the project work.

O O O O

There is a clear process for making decisions among the partners.

O O O O

Overall the partners have a clear sense of their roles and responsibilities.

O O O O

I personally have informal conversations about this collaboration with at least some of the outside partners.

O O O O

Overall the partners have a clear shared goal or purpose. O O O O

I find that my institution does its fair share of the work involved in this collaboration.

O O O O

This collaboration is able to adapt to changing conditions. O O O O

My institution is able to maintain its independence even while taking part in this collaboration.

O O O O

12 Overall, how effective was the collaboration in achieving the intended goals or outcomes?

Please rate from 1 (not at all effective) to 4 (highly effective).

1

Not at all effective

2

Somewhat effective

3

Effective

4

Highly effective

О О О О


92

14 This section focuses on the success of the collaboration. Please give your opinion on each of the following statements, from 1 (disagree) to 3 (agree). If you don’t know or if the statement does not apply to your collaboration, please tick the last column.

1

Disagree

2

Somewhat agree

3

Agree

Not applicable or

Don’t know

This collaboration increased operating efficiency at my institution.

O O O O

This collaboration has reduced financial costs for my institution.

O O O O

This collaboration has shared knowledge and/or skills among the partners.

O O O O

This collaboration has increased levels of trust among the partners involved.

O O O O

This collaboration is likely to lead to further collaboration in the future with the outside organisation(s) involved.

O O O O

I would recommend others at my institution to get involved in collaborations.

O O O O

This collaboration has increased the public profile of my institution.

O O O O

This collaboration has helped reduce competition for resources.

O O O O

This collaboration is able to adapt to changing conditions. O O O O

My institution is able to maintain its independence even while taking part in this collaboration.

O O O O

15 Has working in collaboration in any way changed the way you do your job? (For example: informed your classroom teaching; changed your work-place priorities; influenced spending decisions.) Please briefly explain.

16 Please identify the main challenge(s) that you found to working with outside organisations on this collaboration. (Please write up to three.)

1.

2 .

3.



Project

93

17 Please identify the main elements that make it easy for you to work with outside organisations in this collaboration. (Please write up to three.)

1.

2 .

3.

18 Please use this area to add any further thoughts or comments about this collaboration or about collaboration with external organisations generally.

1.

2 .

3.

Thank you for taking part in this questionnaire. We appreciate your assistance with this collaborative research project.

If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us:

Dr Sally Bodkin-Allen (Research Manager), Dr Jerry Hoffman and Dr Jo Whittle

Phone: (03) 211 2699

ext. 3316 Email: [email protected]

133 Tay Street,

Invercargill, Southland

Freephone: 0800 40 FEES

(0800 40 3337}

Phone: (03) 211 2699

Fax: +64 3 214 4977

Email: [email protected]

collaboration report 2015

Documents