Partnership implementation stage

An important view in collaborative advantage theory is that shared resources glue both partners in a long-term collaboration (Luo, 2002). Yan and Gray (1994) observed an increasing role of trust in weakening the risky effect of self-interests bargaining on partnership operations where one partner is more reliant on the other partners’ distinctive resources. This means that resource sharing can enhance the initiation of trust within the collaboration process. Min et al. (2005) argue that the collaborative advantage of partnerships may not be instantly visible, but that the potential long-term rewards can be appealing and strategic. Sometimes these non-tangible forms may be concerned with the relationship among partners, organisations, and other groups that give the partnerships their endorsement and legitimacy (Huxham and Vangen, 2004).

In the implementation of a partnership, these arguments in the last paragraph can be refuted, especially as partnership arrangements are long termed and have diverse partner organisations. The determinants of a successful performance of the collaboration is associated with the process of partnership which include; the degree to which all partners are given an opportunity to participate in the process; the level of transparency and accountability that partners exhibit for actively engaging in partnership process, and the degree to which levels of trust exist between the partners from the different sectors (Kelly, 2012). Specifically, each individual collaboration element plays a key role in contributing to the overall effectiveness of the collaboration process and to the performance of the partnership. There can be elements of overlap among these collaboration elements as benefits which emerge from the process, such as increased levels of mutual interdependence, trust, transparency and accountability among the partners, may be viewed as the partnership outcomes.

During implementation stages, international organisations tend to withdraw from the operational activities in the partnership, but continue in an engagement role by offering capacity building and training activities. In addition, they help to resolve problems or conflict when they do arise, due to the changing dynamics of partnerships and partnership working (Stadtler and Probst, 2012). As part of frameworks established by

84

international bodies, the public and private sector organisations are encouraged to draft Memorandum of Understanding that clarify roles, responsibilities and delivery milestones and to make use of prescribed tools, but more importantly to build on partner organisations’ strengths in order to create trust and best practices in the partnership working.

• Risk management capability

Risk management covers the extent to which financial or operational risk, is substantially allocated to the partner with the best capabilities and willingness to take up risk and to manage them in any partnership arrangement. Partners need to first identify and understand the potential risks associated with a project to ensure proper risk management strategies, such that keeping the level of risk commensurate with each partner can be more structurally stable and enhance collaboration (Wilson, 2014; Ward, Chapman and Cutis, 1991). This would allow increase commitment from each partner, thereby creating a more conducive environment in which trust and accountability can flourish. Should partners become concerned with risk being less commensurate, the initial attempt of establishing trust could recede (Das and Teng, 1998).

Different PPP projects are argued to have different risk profiles as there is no risk classification approach that is applicable to all. Likewise, the significance of a particular risk factor differs from project to project and between countries (Kwak, Chih and Ibbs, 2009). For instance, political risk is regarded more important in developing markets than in developed countries. More generally, political risk factors (such as uncertainty of government policy and instability of government); financial risk factors (such as inflation and interest-rate risks) and legal risk factors (such as changes in laws and regulations and an inefficient legal process) are suggested to be assumed by the government, while operation related risks, for instance, technical and management risks should either be retained by the private sector or in other cases demand and supply risks could be shared by the public and the private sector (Ameyaw and Chan, 2015; Kwak, Chih and Ibbs, 2009).

85

• Collaborative commitment

Partners need to be committed to creating something new or adding new value to the partnership arrangement. According to Coote et al. (2003), commitment exists when partners believe the collaboration is worth working on, but warrants maximum efforts to maintain or enhance it. Furthermore, commitment counters opportunism and determines trustworthiness (Doz, 1996), as well as the willingness to collaborate and the propensity to enhance effectiveness because the partners can put their efforts towards desired outcomes (Coote et al., 2003; Goodman and Dion, 2001).

• Collaborative communications

The importance attached to opening up and ensuring wider channels of communication can affect how decisions are made and how the partnership working is taken forward (Andrews and Entwistle, 2010). Kasper-Fuherer and Ashkanasy (2001) argue that communication of trust and transparency requires that proper attention be given to collaboration processes in the partnership arrangement. Communication is defined as the formal and informal sharing of reliable and meaningful information between partners (Goodman and Dion, 2001). In other words, the communication of transparency in partnership arrangements is as an integral part in sustaining mutual interdependence, trust, transparency and accountability in the partnership.

• Collaborative governing and decision making

Governance refers to self-organising inter-organisational networks, characterized by interdependence between organisations, continuous interactions among partners embedded and dependent on rules negotiated by the partnership members (Rhodes, 1997). Therefore, strategies to develop effective partnerships thus involve the combination of different styles of governance in a setting where the power relations between the partners shift and this can result in dynamics that could encourage collaboration. A limiting factor of local capacity for governance is the continuous influence of bureaucracy forced on partnerships as they struggle to maintain balance between the bureaucratic rigours imposed by the central government and the issues around accountability, especially as it concerns public money (Davis, 2002). In this sense, the public sector partners need to consider the mechanisms most appropriate to

86

hold their private sectors partners accountable, alongside how they will be accountable to their private sector partners (Forrer et al., 2010). The key success however, to governance as suggested by Thompson and Perry (2006) lies in the willingness of partners to monitor the partnership and each other’s adherence to the agreed upon rules, and to impose credible sanctions on non-compliant partners.

• Local community participation

Community involvement, consists of various tools and processes which could either be formal or informal that are aimed to increase the public engagement in planning and implementation of local regeneration partnerships (De Schepper, Dooms and Haezendonck, 2014). The lack of transparency in the bidding and tendering processes and award of projects to the private sector are seen as been unfavourably by the public, especially in projects that are seen to be sensitive in nature such as the hike in payment fees in toll roads or public transport. Having an approach which recognises the local community concerns and integrates them into the decision making processes when negotiating the formation of partnerships allows for the ease of partnership development. Public opposition have resulted from ineffective communication between the local community and stakeholders; the public being unaware or not educated on the meaning and implication of the policy; and more often being denied access to detailed information of partnership arrangements (El-Gohary, Osman and El-Diraby, 2006).

To sustain the involvement of communities in strategic partnership programs, the local community and the partnership may need to make considerable investments in developing community capacity (Pearson and Craig, 2001). PPPs provide an opportunity for community participation in seeking ways to identify and address local regeneration issues. Such involvements can centre the attention of the partnerships on problems significant to the populace in the community; support the partnership in communicating and documenting how the partnership actions are addressing these local regeneration issues (Lasker et al., 2001). Barr and Huxham (1996) however argue that, although the involvement of the community is important, emphasis should be placed on the practical leverage to be gained from doing so. This is because in the context of local regeneration additional issues may arise from the involvement of the local community and the degree to which they may represent the larger community.

87

Depending on socio-economic situations in the local environments, the public’s concerns through the phases of a partnership life cycle will usually focus on long-term issues such as the “effect on businesses, influence on job market and, usage of local labour and material, rather than the environmental or aesthetic impacts of the project” (El-Gohary, Osman and El-Diraby, 2006, p. 596). These concerns would also tend to differ at various stages, for instance at the planning and formation phase concerns are usually about the effectiveness of information dissemination, consultations and feedback to ensure that the proposed project is well suited for the local community. During the implementation phase in a road project, concerns are about the impact of the construction on their daily lives and activities which could result from road closures and other construction related information (De Schepper, Dooms and Haezendonck, 2014; El-Gohary, Osman and El-Diraby, 2006).

It is vital that in partnership working, partners pay due attention to, and develop appropriate mechanisms for, downward accountability; they need to allocate responsibilities to the least centralised level with the potential capacity to satisfactorily meet them, as well as represent all groups with an interest at this level (Lockwood, 2010). This ensures that the partnership is close to those people who are most affected by decisions. Community participation in partnership decision-making and implementation is an ideal that partners ought to factor into partnership arrangements (Charlier, Glover and Robertson, 2009; McQuaid, 2000). By combining the knowledge, skills and resources of a broad array of interest groups, organisations can understand the underlying nature of these problems and develop effective and locally feasible solutions to address them.

In the study conducted by Hastings (1996) on the central government-led Scottish Urban Partnerships, partners’ views suggested that while the contact with representatives of the community partner was edifying on numerous occasions, it was considered challenging. It becomes imperative that the representatives of the local community are not inundated by the demands of participation, but that the local community is fully resourced and empowered to develop the needed capacity to be involved and to offer support to the partnership (Pearson and Craig, 2001). Miraftab (2004, p.98), suggests that “the strength of the grassroots and disadvantaged communities as partners must be fostered so that they can exert and sustain their

88

interests in the PPP processes”. However, with the above concerns, community involved need to be actively managed (Huxham and Vangen, 2011).

• Partnership Transformation

At the strategic level, collaboration brings together various individuals, organisations, and sectors, this can lead to changes in the way these collaborations conceptualize and solve problems (Lasker et al., 2001). Collaborative advantage is suggested to be a process of transforming power relations so that the less powerful partners of partnership have a voice in policy making (Sink 1996). Some individuals and organisations change when they are associated with partners with diverse assumptions and ways of working (Mayo, 1997).

Mackintosh (1992) argues that transformation is a process whereby partners seek to change or challenge the aims and operating cultures of other partners; through which the private sector can make major changes in the public sector, thus bringing about more efficient decision-making or a more streamlined way of working, and simultaneously a vehicle whereby the public sectors can challenge the private sector to adopt more social objectives that are less driven by short term returns. This process of mutual transformation is usually characterised by less coercive and antagonistic relationships, for each partner might be willing to accept the need to change and to aspire to change others (Hastings, 1996).

Another argument put forward by Mackintosh (1992) is that the process of transformation may actually be unidirectional. This is such that the advocacy for change involves an unequal power relation, in which, one or all partners are unwilling to change; the public sector is reformed against its will and so also is the private sector forced to address more social issues (Hastings, 1996). Collaborative advantage is thus suggested to occur through the dynamics of the partnership process, whereby partners through negotiations achieve meaningful shared power and commit to enhance each other’s capacity for mutual benefits and common purpose for sharing risks, responsibilities, resources and rewards (Himmelman, 1996). It is thus during these negotiations that a transformative process can occur, such that partners seek to transform each other’s perceptions on how best to solve issues that may arise, establish

89

a common vision and develop mutual respect and basis for trusting each other (Ball, Le Ny and Maginn, 2004).