The process of collaboration – framework refinement

In chapter 2, I presented a model for effective collaboration drawn from existing literature on collaboration in a variety of contexts which is reproduced here as Figure 37.

174 Figure 37 - Framework for Effective Post-Disaster Collaboration

This section considers each aspect of this model in turn considering its applicability to the Collaborations in this study. EPIC and Re:Start are discussed separately as their nature as multi-party place based collaborations leads to several points of difference from the remainder of the business to business collaborations in this study.

5.1. EPIC and Re:START

These two cases provide support for the proposed framework for effective post-disaster collaboration.

The differences between the two cases also illustrate that those conditions should be viewed as broad

CONTEXT:

175 prescriptions with the means to fulfilling them potentially differing. Table 23 lists the key similarities and differences from each case.

EPIC Re:START

Context High level of support, but

declining level of institutional flexibility

Highly supportive institutional Larger number of project sceptics Membership Broad and incremental

Primarily based on industry affiliation

Leadership Emergent, respected as successful business owner

Established referent organisation Structure Evolving and driven by practicalities Evolving and driven by practicalities Process Staged and open to input

More Engineered Government funded

Escalating commitment to build trust

More Emergent through informal discussions

High levels of consensus building Charitable funding

Table 23- Key similarities and differences for each case

 Context

The importance of context in our proposed framework is evident in these two cases, with both capitalising on the initial period of mutual support, and citizen rather than government led recovery.

The cases also illustrate that context is time specific with the progress through recovery potentially having significant impacts on whether a context supportive of collaboration exists. Re:START encountered fewer hurdles than EPIC, with part of the reason for this relating to that changing context over time. For EPIC, the supportive community feedback was a key motivating factor in spurring on their voluntary efforts. For Re:START some negative community feedback was received but the larger initiating group provided the support to overcome this.

 Membership

A disaster creates many of the conditions proposed as important with regard to who joins in a collaborative effort. The widespread destruction creates a clear dissatisfaction with the status quo and a clear notion of interdependence with regard to recovery of the overall region. Both initiatives provided a clear reason to work together by understanding the needs of affected businesses and creating a vision that was better than any party could create alone. Membership of the core organising groups evolved as the projects developed, with attention paid to obtaining the support of those influential within each domain. The appropriate resources and skills were obtained through the differing networks that each member brought to the groups.

176 With regard to the importance of trust, our framework suggests that members of a collaborative initiative should ideally have existing relationships. This is because trust, which takes time to form, will already be established. Re:START followed this conventional wisdom in that there were pre-existing relationships between the members and history of working together and building trust both with the core members and external bodies such as the local authority. EPIC is a little different with an antecedent relationship between the two co-founders but much lesser relationships with other parties to the initiative. Here the influence of process factors can be seen with the staged model of EPICs development assisting in the development of trust with the initial memorandum of understanding providing the symbolic backing of 40 other businesses. These businesses were able to show their support for the project but without having to commit – reducing the perceived risks and need for immediate trust. In fact, many of the initial supporters did drop out having found other quicker methods to achieve their aims of functional and fit for purpose premises. As the project developed, champions with status within the business community helped to grow trust.

Also of significance are the different sectors of the projects. The majority of EPIC tenants were managing to operate in at least a reduced form from temporary premises and their ability to take the risk of investing energy into the EPIC idea was therefore enhanced by their at least minimum functioning level. This represented an enormous challenge for Re:START in that the majority of its tenants are customer facing retail businesses. The degree of trust needed by them in the project founders and implementers was much greater given their business resumption was at stake. This is potentially significant in considering the greater prior relationships and influence in the domain of the Re:START founders relative to the EPIC founders. Also relevant to the disaster context is the element of desperation – the idea that in a post disaster setting where few options seem available, business owners may see no other option but to take the risk of joining a group without the prior trust building activities. Prior research suggests that working relationships between organisations need to exist before a disaster in order to assist in effective recovery (Olshansky, Johnson, & Topping, 2006;

Vallance, 2012). The success of EPIC suggests that there are ways to overcome the impediment of weak pre-existing relationships given a supportive context and attention to process. Prior social relations may ‘often’ (Granovetter, 1985) be a necessary condition for trust, but not always.

 Leadership

These two cases also support the proposition that who convenes and leads the collaboration and how they do it is important. However, it is not necessarily obvious as to who those leaders may be.

Re:START was a clear example of a person (manager of the CCBA) already working in a collaborative style with many of the stakeholders and with a clear legitimacy in the domain. EPIC

177 was somewhat different in that its founders were well known within their own small community but with no responsibility for any of the issues previously affecting that domain. The legitimacy of the founders was based solely on their creation and management of successful companies and their involvement in sectoral events. Gray suggests that “existing power distribution” amongst the members of the domain will effect legitimacy (B. Gray, 1985, p. 923). This is relevant in considering this sector where the founders companies were relatively long established and viewed as successful in a sector with many smaller and younger companies still in the establishment stages. Their actions illustrate that there is potential for emerging and not just established groups and leaders in the post disaster environment. These examples also illustrate that while the disaster may have destroyed much physical property, existing power distributions remain relatively unchanged.

 Structure

Structure was largely a function of practicalities and funding requirements. Both initiatives followed conventional leasing arrangements creating a legal contract between a newly established trust and participating tenants. This structure allowed the participating tenants their continued independence with a simple contractual agreement, and gave funders the conventional means of testing the viability of the projects.

 Process

In keeping with the proposed framework, both projects emerged from extensive discussions, achieving consensus through an open consultative approach. Development was staged with a clear emphasis on the consensus building, drawing in further stakeholders and members as the project ideas evolved prior to any official organisation and structuring. Re:START built an extensive and broad consensus with regard to the benefit of attempting a joint solution, however, for some organisations this was still delivered to them as an engineered solution. The EPIC founders also discussed the concept widely but refined the concept in a more isolated fashion before presenting the solution to organisations.