Partnership fatigue as a consequence of the change process

Evidence from participants indicates that the theme of ‘partnership fatigue’ was a contributory problem that impacted on the sustainability of the UHOVI initiative. This is further developed in Section four as a contributory factor to the discontinuation of UHOVI. UHOVI was planned in 2009 as part of a wider Welsh Assembly Government Turning Heads…A Strategy for the Heads of the Valleys (2006) that included: health; economic inactivity; image; the environment as well as higher education policy to regenerate the Heads of the Valleys. This comprehensive strategy included other projects which were also being developed around this time. For example, the third senior leader from the FE College indicated that he

Was having to maintain positive relationships with the LEA and school 6th _forms

knowing their ambition to retain their 6th forms. This was in spite of the WG transformation agenda to reduce the number of post 16 providers (Senior leader 3).

The closure of all 6th forms within the Merthyr Local Education Authority (LEA), presented a huge opportunity for one of the FE colleges that could be deemed more important to this particular FE College than the UHOVI partnership. Thus the FE College was involved in multiple, competing partnerships at this time, all of which were important in helping to regenerate the region. Similarly, the two senior leaders from the universities were involved in the building of new campuses in Newport and Cardiff respectively. The third senior leader stressed the importance of the WG Transformation agenda (2008), stating that ‘it was intended to transform the post 16 education landscape in Wales, the sheer scale of the networking activity that was taking place at this time added to a lack of clarity and an element of complexity in each of the partnerships’. To develop this point, the same senior leader stressed that

The level 1, 2 and 3 curriculum offer within the college was the key driving focus for the College. With school 6th forms closing, it was imperative that we planned and were ready for the new tertiary system (Senior leader 3).

All the senior leaders mentioned the importance of the new campus ‘builds’ to their respective universities. These were identified as significant, not as a form of distraction, but to illustrate how busy their respective organisations were at this time. For example, the second senior leader indicates that ‘the new builds were there to cater for a new cohort of students, designed primarily to attract full time, fee paying students from across Wales, the UK and with a clear intention to attract the international market’. This level of transformation was far bigger than the UHOVI offer. This message wasn’t lost on around half of the participants and especially the first academic participant who felt that

Whilst UHOVI was important business to all partners, with the obvious value involved, it was never close enough to being core business for any of them. There was always the feeling that every partner was being pulled in a different direction at any given time (Academic 1).

It was suggested by the fourth academic participant that ‘UHOVI was regarded as ‘additional’ business to the universities and by 2013 it had lost something of its original appeal’. Huxham and Vangen (2009) identify the factor of partnership fatigue, where the partners become tired of being pulled in all directions. Interestingly the data in table 7.3 indicates that the HE credits steadily increased from 2010 to 2013, but between 2012/13 and 2013/14 the HE credit values drop from 110,595 by approximately 50% to 55650. This supports the data in Table 7.3 that identifies the decline in enrolments from Phase 1 to Phase 2.

Table 7.3: The acquisition of higher education credits by UHOVI, 2008/09 – 2015/16 Academic Year UHOVI credit Increase/decrease in

credit pa 2008/09 0 0 2009/10 9380 - 2010/11 39685 +30305 2011/12 82160 +42475 2012/13 110595 +28435 2013/14 55650 - 54945 2014/15 60740 +5090 2015/16 126630 +66890

Huxham and Vangen (2009) suggest that some participants try to link agendas across initiatives, but that these initiatives may not overlap and as such partners lose interest, partnership fatigue sets in. Both the quantitative and qualitative data suggests this to be the case regarding UHOVI circa 2013/14.

The fourth administrative participant also indicates that ‘UHOVI could have been suffering partnership fatigue at all levels, strategic and operationally’. A point that was made by all the senior leader participants also seems relevant here. They noted their concern that UHOVI at the start of Phase 2 started being referred to specifically as a ‘project’ by HEFCW and by the staff that were involved in its delivery. The third administrative participant voiced similar concerns ‘that projects invariably have a start, a middle and an end, meaning that UHOVI could potentially end in the summer of 2016’. Her concern was certainly compounded ‘by the need to continue to build and maintain positive relationships at a time when all partners were now aware that there was an end in sight’. This she suggested ‘was not only more time consuming but energy sapping and frustrating for all involved’. Undoubtedly, this would have been a key factor in the partners experiencing pain and fatigue at this time. This qualitative evidence indicates that partnership fatigue was a contributor to UHOVI not achieving the collaborative advantage it quite possibly could have. It was a central element of the process of change and based on the observations of most of the participants there was a decline in enthusiasm from all involved with UHOVI post Phase 1. The ambition of the newly-merged institution of USW contributed to the partnership fatigue within UHOVI because of their new and competing

strategic aims and objectives.

Section 4: An Exploration of the reasons for the discontinuation of UHOVI