OVERVIEW OF THE FRAMEWORK OF XSP VALUE

The source of the conceptual framework of XSP value is from Koschmann, Kuhn and Pfarrer (2012) who put forward a framework that applies a CCO approach to cross-sector partnerships (XSPs). Their preferred terminology is the XSP and this term is used in this dissertation with direct reference to this framework. The framework draws on other work on cross-sector collaboration and the Montreal School of CCO. One of its key sources is Kuhn’s (2008) work on authoritative texts. It also draws extensively on the literature on cross-sector social partnerships and the CCO literature. The main sources have already been discussed in the literature review in Chapter 3 and are not repeated here.

The aim of this section is to present the background assumptions and definitions used in the framework of XSP value and its key features. It also explains how the framework is connected to the research question, in order to substantiate its choice in the research analysis.

4.14.1 Connecting the framework of XSP value with the research question

There are two ways in which this framework connects with the research questions. The first is the focus on cross-sector partnerships and specifically XSPs with “the potential to address society’s most complex problems” (2012). Since sustainability issues, including sustainable seafood, are considered to be complex, global concerns, it is evident that the subject matter is aligned.

The second is the focus on value creation, including value at the partnership level as well as for partner organisations.

Koschmann et al. stated that “questions of value are always preceded by ontological considerations: the value of something depends on what it is”. Following this logic, and on the assumption that XSPs are constituted through communication, then the value of an XSP is related to the communication processes from which it is constituted. The definition of value used in the XSP framework is therefore broadly stated and is directed at the value of the XSP, as a distinct organisational form, rather than value for individual member organisations.

While the extant literature on XSP value is acknowledged by Koschmann et al., they concluded that the majority of current research is directed at single organisations and is based on other assumptions. Their framework therefore offers a different view and one that is appropriate to the selected setting of this research, which is a multi-dimensional network of organisations supporting sustainable seafood initiatives, as described in Chapter 2 at Paragraph 2.5.3.

4.14.2 The definition of value adopted by the XSP framework

According to the XSP framework, value at the partnership level is explained in terms of collective agency. Rather than a unidimensional definition, Koschmann et al. offered a multi-dimensional framework of XSP value that is collectively and collaboratively constructed by the members of the XSP. Conceptually, this aligns with the assumptions of this research.

The definition of value applied in the framework is determined by the ability of the XSP to act meaningfully; it is about making a difference; and it means “the ability to “substantially influence the people and issues within their problem domain”. According to Koschmann et al., the assessment of value can be considered in terms of how the XSP “secures the legitimate right to continue to appropriate the capital of the individuals and collectives associated with it”. This allows for a wide range of factors to be considered and assessments from different perspectives. It is aligned with the fieldwork design and demonstrates that the XSP framework was an appropriate choice for the research analysis.

Based on this conception of value, collective agency is defined as “the capacity to produce value”

beyond that which individual organisations would be able to do on their own. This interpretation calls to mind the general definition of collaboration by Gray (1989: 5). Further, collective agency is an emergent property, it is a higher-order quality, rather than a structure or a process. According to CCO theorising, it is communication processes that facilitate the emergence of systems with the capacity for collective agency.

4.14.3 Key components of the framework

The framework may be explained with reference to its key components. These are:

i) the trajectory of the authoritative text;

ii) three communicative practices as empirical indicators for increasing value potential; and iii) two communicative practices as empirical indicators for assessing value delivery.

The various communicative practices are described as empirical indicators. In their discussion on how to assess XSP value, Koschmann et al. referenced Gray (2000), in which she discussed how different theoretical approaches require different criteria for judging success or failure. The evidence used to assess the degree to which the criteria or key outcomes have been achieved are called indicators.

The concept of an authoritative text has already been introduced in the literature review in Chapter 3 at Paragraph 3.23.2. It is a higher-order system that emerges as an organisational form constituted by the communicative practices of its members. It is ‘authored’ by its members, there are people who represent it, who have the ‘authority’ to act on its behalf. This gives it the capacity to act collectively. It is a form of organising that assumes that there is an organisational actor and hence Kuhn (2008) referred to it as a ‘text’ rather than a process of organising. The authoritative text may be named, it may have an identity and a narrative that defines what it is, why it exists, who is involved and what it is trying to achieve. For ease of reference, the term authoritative text will be referred to with the acronym AT.

The key components of the framework are now described as depicted in Figure 4.2. It should be noted that the relationships between these components are not causal in terms of a linear ‘if-then’

type of causality (known as efficient cause). These components are interconnected through the interactions of members and value is not an outcome caused by certain actions or activities; rather, value is an emergent property from a complex system of interactions and communicative practices as explained by CCO theorising.

All references in the following descriptions are taken from Koschmann et al. (2012), unless otherwise noted.

Figure 4.2: Communicative practices: Key components of the framework of XSP value Source: Derived from Koschmann et al. (2012).