Types of collaborations and why the differences really matter. (Partnerships and Networks).

How collaborative efforts can be made more effective by linking expectations with the realities of working in an interorganizational environment.

Much has been written about the successes and failures of collaborations among the public, private, and nonprofit sectors (including community groups). However, it is often unclear as to why one collaboration is successful, while another is not. It is suggested that perhaps not all collaborations are alike and that different types of collaborations require different ways of behaving and managing. In addition, it is suggested that not all types of collaborations will lead to the same results and that what may be considered a failure in a collaborative effort may actually be a failure to understand what type of collaboration is most appropriate for different situations.

Different Types of Collaborations

Collaborations can best be understood as a continuum from partnerships that are formed loosely with a narrow focus and great independence to more structured and interdependent collaborations that encompass broad systems change to accomplish a common policy goal. These arrangements differentiate among a variety of characteristics and range from intermittent coordination to more lasting arrangements or network structures.

Intermittent Coordination

Intermittent coordination occurs when the policies and procedures of two or more organizations are adjusted mutually to accomplish some objective. There are low levels of interaction. Members may cooperate on a number of different activities, but the commitment to each other is at an arm's length. Resource sharing is relatively small and low risk. Examples of this type of interorganizational arrangement include coordinating activities of various agencies to deal with disasters such as earthquakes in California.

Temporary Task Force

A temporary task force or ad hoc activity among organizations to accomplish a purpose or purposes is similar to intermittent coordination, but differs in the specific focus and tasks to be accomplished. It is set up to work on a specific and limited purpose and will disband when that purpose is accomplished. Resource sharing is limited in scope (usually to the expertise of staff members or information) as is commitment to a limited goal or set of goals. Temporary task forces are meant to discuss problems and make recommendations. They are not set up to implement programs or make changes in systems. Examples of this type of arrangement can range from addressing environmental concerns (e.g., water quality standards) to social concerns (e.g., dealing with the Los Angeles riots in the 1990s).

Permanent and/or Regular Coordination

Permanent and/or regular coordination happens when two or more organizations, through a formal arrangement (i.e., a council, partnership, etc.) agree to engage in limited activity to achieve a purpose or purposes. This requires a commitment of resources beyond information sharing and generally involves common goals. Membership is delineated strictly and restricted so that there is stable coordination. There are more formal requirements on activities and relationships.

Resource sharing requires some degree …