We understand partnership as a working relationship based on This Partnership Policy and Guide defines why and how Educo Only by building effective partnerships based on commitment, equity and respect will we. A partnership can be defined as a collaborative relationship between This leads to improved coordination of policies, programs, and service delivery. Shared. Identify factors associated with a successful working partnership and where potential barriers may exist. • Ensure partnerships are built on a.
Identify the shared values of the group. Then, as a group, decide on what your shared values and norms will be.
Partnership norms must be agreed upon by all members of the group. Document partnership norms and make them easily accessible. Based on your shared values, write statements that will serve as guidelines for behavior and how the group will work together. For example, if your partnership places a value on participant attendance at partnership meetings, a suggested norm might read: We will attend all partnership meetings regularly. I will notify members in advance if I must miss a meeting.
I will ask another member of the group to debrief me within one week of missing any meetings. Consider posting your partnership norms on a shared website or virtual workspace. Communicate the norms regularly. Consider creating laminated cards or fact sheets that can be distributed to members. You might also consider attaching a copy of partnership norms with all meeting notes or posting them in the meeting rooms. Update the norms as needed.
Partnership norms are only effective when all members of the group agree on the shared values. Use communication structures to facilitate open discussion.
Open, honest communication is a cornerstone of good partnerships. It can be built by creating communication norms and using structures for facilitated discussion. To facilitate discussion is to be intentionally conscious of a framework for use in dialogue.
Successful partnerships use consistent communication norms in every interaction and meeting.Codependency and the Addiction Recovery Process
They engage in open dialogue within established parameters and allow for healthy conflict. Below are some suggestions for building strong communication. Hire a consultant to train all staff and partners on facilitation techniques.
Build proficiency in two or more leaders who develop understanding of at least one proven model of communication and commit to using that model. Each of the following books contains a practical communication framework: Participate in Courage to Lead workshops. The most essential element is having a skillful facilitator and at least one alternate.
Facilitators must be able to uphold the decided-on norms and dialogue framework. All participants must agree to the norms and be willing to hold each other accountable. Through facilitated communication, partnership members must learn how to engage in productive conflict, which is necessary in order for the group to implement community-wide solutions. The best work plans establish buy-in from members, are realistic, have measurable outcomes, and hold people accountable.
Technology can be a powerful resource to strengthen implementation of collaborative work plans and support partnership norms and communication practices.
There are a host of platforms that allow you to effectively collaborate with partners online. Four types of technology tools that can be used are: Ensure your collaborative work plans have these key characteristics. A collaborative work plan is a document that outlines the structure of work for the partnership or a specific initiative within the partnership. Good work plans have the following characteristics: Establish buy-in Although collaborative work plans document the work breakdown for your specific tasks, they alone cannot motivate people to action.
Increase your success rate by first establishing buy-in for the plan from the members of your work group. People want to see progress, no matter how incremental. Stay within the scope of your project. Have measurable outcomes Consider developing immediate, short-term, and long-term outcomes for your collaborative work plan. Identify how you will determine the success of your activities and efforts.
What indicators will you measure? Hold people accountable Communicate group accountability and interdependence of activities. Having an effective structure for open, honest communication can support conversations about accountability as issues arise.
It can be tempting to let the lead organization serve as the center for collaborative work. However, when all partners host meetings, facilitate gatherings, or provide training to other partners, responsibility is shared by all members. This, in turn, increases feelings of ownership and long-term commitment to the partnership.
Partnering agreements: Effective relationship management in complex development programs
Some of these technology platforms can help you manage your partnerships. Technology platforms that support online collaboration vary in terms of the depth of collaboration their systems allow. These platform categories include: Methods for distributing information, such as websites and electronic newsletters Systems for collaborating, such as electronic mailing lists and document sharing Systems for real-time interaction, such as Internet forums and online meetings Systems for managing the project, such as web-based project management tools Technologies for distributing information are the least collaborative because they simply allow a lead organization to distribute information across a network.
To go beyond information dissemination, consider using collaboration technologies—platforms that allow multiple participants to have a voice. These platforms for communicating and sharing data allow partners to have a conversation, edit a document together, share data with each other, or all of the above. Systems for real-time interaction not only provide online collaboration, but allow partners to work together online in real-time, replicating as closely as possible the experience of working in the same room.
And, finally, using web-based project management tools allows a lead organization to be completely transparent with project plans, roles, responsibilities, and deadlines.
For more information about online technologies for managing your partnership, download this "Technology Choices" document by clicking the link. Partnership Challenges and Evaluation The challenges involved in managing your partnership will typically fall into two categories—substantive issues and relationship issues. Organizations tend to carefully consider substantive issues, such as budgets or administrative arrangements.
Partnerships: Frameworks for Working Together
But few pay adequate attention to a major cause of partnership failure—relationship issues, such as the inability to resolve conflict. The key, of course, is for partnerships to focus on both types of issues.
Successful partnerships select someone to serve as a dedicated partnership manager. A partnership manager might support healthy relationships by coordinating communication between partners, ensuring adherence to norms and collaboration processes, spotting potential conflicts, mediating disputes, and tracking the health of the working relationship over time.
All partnerships need an ongoing process to monitor both substantive and relationship issues. Broad evaluation questions might include: Is the partnership meeting its aims and objectives? How well is it performing? There are various challenges to sustaining effective partnerships. It helps to anticipate potential barriers to working effectively with your partners. Some barriers are substantive, which means they involve financial, strategic, or technical issues.
Other challenges are relationship-oriented.
Partnerships: Frameworks for Working Together
These issues might relate to leader compatibility, degree of trust, joint problem-solving capacity, or conflict resolution ability. Other challenges that partnerships may face include turf battles among stakeholders, clashes between different organizational cultures, rigid policies regarding intellectual property, disputes over private sector engagement, inappropriate staffing and role assignments, the ups and downs of community politics, and member burnout.
As the partnership evolves, partners must identify whatever barriers exist and work together to resolve them. Effective partnerships use monitoring and evaluation processes. Partnerships need to create methods for evaluating and revising aims and objectives.
This means providing opportunities to learn what has been successful and what has not and to build these lessons into revised plans. Formal performance management processes, such as clarifying performance expectations and providing feedback, also contribute to partnership monitoring and evaluation. This helps identify simmering conflict, negative perceptions, or relationship risks, which can then be constructively addressed before they undercut the partnership.
Monitoring and evaluation also helps partners anticipate changes that may affect the partnership so they can collaboratively plan for the implications of such change. For instance, this helps the partnership to: Partnership Transitions and Endings All partnerships experience transition and, ultimately, closure.
If not, then why are people feeling this way? Just as launching a partnership requires broad thinking, ending one does too. Transition and closure are natural stages in a partnership. Every partnership must eventually consider issues of transition and ending. Some partnerships may use this time to renew goals and commitments.
Have an open and honest discussion with your partners to understand when the partnership is transitioning into a stage of renewal or ending. Every partnership relationship is unique. What motivates one organization or individual to continue working collaboratively might be very different from what motivates another. Governance programs require a strategic and well-thought-out approach in order to manage often-competing agendas among diverse counterparts in institutions in which the programs are trying to support progressive change.
The risks to implementation that can result from relationships going awry are considerable and can be costly in time and money, but also in terms of reputation and license to operate. The confluence of relationships involved is made more challenging by the engagement of Managing Contractors, who are responsible for project implementation and delivery on behalf of the donor, adding a layer of relationship complexity often ignored.
With a number of complex governance programs or facilities, in DFAT in Indonesia decided to put the complexity of the relationships involved in implementing those programs at the forefront. The partnership approach we used follows a partnership cycle framework  and involves a participatory process with a number of key stakeholders — facilitated by an external and importantly, neutral partnership broker — to achieve an agreement on principles and approaches to working together to achieve an agreed set of common goals.
This can involve contentious issues and differences being discussed and navigated in an equitable environment, which is critical to the trust building which is at the foundation of establishing robust relationships.
It therefore involves both a process and a product, which are equally important. The process differs from that which results in a more traditional contract or grant agreement in that it is created through the facilitated discussion and returned to at regular intervals through for reflection and reinvigoration.
The Partnering Agreement is not a legally-binding document. It is a guiding framework for how the partners to a program will work together to implement an agreed program of work, and sits alongside and in addition to any contract or grant agreement. Ideally, all main parties to the program jointly revisit the agreement at an agreed interval. In the case of the Indonesia program, they have been revisited every six months or so. Importantly, in a world of doing development differentlypartnership approaches are a tool for managing the risks of highly flexible and iterative programs.
By facilitating more open and trusting relationships, as opposed to more compliance-oriented ones, our experience has shown that crises or challenges tend to be resolved earlier and more cooperatively, with everyone taking responsibility for coming up with solutions. Where programs are complex and dealing with often politically sensitive issues, working collaboratively and proactively in this way lessens the chances of potentially damaging and time consuming misunderstandings.
How did it help? All four programs were rated as good or very good investments in the annual Australian Quality Check process in and