Understanding municipal collaboration
Discerning the determinants for the willingness to collaborate
Abstract: This research is focusing at the structural variables that determine the configuration for collaboration. The interest of the consulting firm DHV lies at the underlying rationale for municipalities to enact into collaboration. We defined this as the willingness. Within this research we explored determinants that influence the willingness to collaborate. From the theoretical conception of the contingency theory, premature propositions were formulated. These have been judged by a panel of experts. Additionally, the results uncovered information that changed the view upon the problem situation. The theory was reconsidered and evolved into five determinants that impose an influence on the willingness to collaborate. These are: (1) The sense-making process for middle management, (2) Being conscious about reciprocal dependencies, (3) An open culture, (4) Limited feedback mechanisms towards strategic control, (5) Authentic dialogue. The first variable seems to be more relevant within the preliminary phase of collaboration. The fourth variable seems to more relevant within the change process.
The second, third and fifth variable are relevant along all the different phases of collaboration
Keywords: Cooperation, collaboration, municipalities, Expert
Initiated by:
DHV-Bestuur & organisatie
Study:
Technology Management
University supervisors:
Dr. Ir. H. van de Water Drs. R. A. Rozier
Company supervisor:
Mr. F.J. Nijland
Document:
Master thesis
Student: H.K.C. de Vries (1579517)
Turof & Linstone- “It should be borne in mind as we proceed that the question of concern is not how we can determine or agree on the meaning of "truth" with "perfect or
complete certainty," for put in this form, the answer is clearly that we cannot know anything with "perfect certainty." We cannot even know with "perfect certainty" that "we
cannot know anything with `perfect certainty."' The real question is what can we know and, even more to the point, how we can justify what we think we can know”.
Preface
A little more than three years ago, I faced the challenge to graduate for my bachelor in Engineering. At that time I wrote a final thesis on the manufacturing processes of producing paper cardboard. Now I almost finished my master thesis and thereby just a small doorstep away from the graduation as a Master of Science in Technology Management. This thesis is thus written at the final stage of the educational program, and reflects the confrontation of the academic and the business world. As one could imagine, with both their own objectives, problems and needs.
The study of technology management has turned out to be a well thought-through study, that seamlessly complements my previous study in engineering. The academic skills enable me to think –often mentioned by teachers at university of Groningen- above the “line”, and thereby make the bridge between abstract theoretical thinking and the practical course of every day delusion, hence providing the grassroots to make a difference in complex and messy situations.
For my Master Thesis I sought an assignment were I could elaborate my skills in business sciences and at March I sent an application to DHV, a consulting and engineering firm. After several conversations we agreed upon an assignment where the focus was put upon an assessment of literature to design a diagnosing framework. The department faced difficulties with the advisements at municipal collaboration. In April I started an internship at the northern department of DHV, with an office on the 8th floor, where one has a magnificent outlook over the city of Groningen.
Within my research, a lot of people provided information to the subject of municipal collaboration. There are six interviewees and eight participants that provided the extensive questionnaires. I’m very thankful for their participation in my research. Especially Mr Meijerman and Mr. Heiminge, who invested a lot of time and brought in a lot of experience on the topic of municipal collaboration. Koos, thanks for the many times we had an ‘early morning’
conversation, with a nice cup of tea. As a company supervisor you allowed a lot of freedom to design my own research and to choose my own research direction. I’m very thankful for the possibilities you’ve provided. Also my colleagues at the other side of the wall, Sjoerd and Aly, who made the time at DHV very pleasant (despite the few times Sjoerd got us a cup of coffee or tea). Furthermore, my gratitude goes to my university supervisor, Hen van de Water. From my point of view, a supervisor should enable you to perform above your current capabilities. I think he enabled me to do this, without losing the human aspect out of sight. I really appreciated the way he supervised me during the process.
Without the support of people surrounding me, I could never reach this educational level and it goes beyond the length of this preface to name them all personally. However, I want to devote some attention to the prime motivators behind my career. And of course I need to start with my parents, who supported me financially and mentally for over ten years! From the very first start, they believed that I had the intelligence to step beyond the ordinary. Without them I would never have had the motivation to start and finish an academic study.
I’m also very grateful for the school buddies surrounding me. Who doesn’t remember the Friday afternoon revivers!
The time they invested to read and provide me with their point of view, was very helpful. Also the endless times I was with Igor in the corner of the second floor of the university library. Those are the times with sweet memories. Igor, Joost, and Ruurd, thanks for your support and friendship!
Last but certainly not least, Linet I’m very grateful for your love, and your passion to support me at every dimension of life!
Herman de Vries
Groningen, October 2008
Ten geleide
DHV is een wereldwijd advies- en ingenieursbureau waarbinnen een afdeling Bestuur & Organisatie (B&O) opereert, die zich vooral bezig houdt met het oplossen van vaak complexe organisatievraagstukken voor haar klanten. De afdeling B&O adviseert deze complexe opgaven vanuit meerdere vakdisciplines en kan daarbij een beroep doen op de intern beschikbare werkvelden: Milieu & Duurzaamheid, Mobiliteit, Water en Gebiedsontwikkeling. De klantenkring van B&O in Noord-Nederland bestaan uit gemeenten, provincies en waterschappen. In deze configuratie komt de kwestie adviseren al dan niet met inzet van geautomatiseerde hulpmiddelen, regelmatig ter sprake.
Veel adviesbureaus zijn op zoek naar een praktisch instrument, dat behulpzaam is bij het doorlichten en adviseren van bedrijven en instellingen. DHV Noord-Nederland heeft Herman de Vries gevraagd, in het kader van zijn afstudeeropdracht aan de R.U.G. naar dit steeds terugkerende vraagstuk te kijken en over de commerciële bruikbaarheid en toepasbaarheid van een vrij op de markt beschikbaar gereedschap, onderzoek te doen. DHV heeft Herman als randvoorwaarde meegegeven vraagstuk binnen een context van ketensamenwerking en organisatieverandering te bezien.
De roep om een best practise instrument, dat behulpzaam kan zijn bij het detecteren van door klanten ervaren organisatieproblematiek tegen een aanvaardbare kostprijs wijst sterk in de richting van een modelmatige benadering van problematiek en een verdergaande technologische ontwikkeling van organisatie-advies. Belangrijke randvoorwaarden bij een mogelijke oplossingsrichting blijft, dat inschakeling van een gereedschap altijd tot maatwerkadvies leidt en klanten blijvend over de eerlijkheid van het totstandkomingproces (procedurele rechtvaardigheid) kunnen oordelen. DHV realiseert zich hierbij altijd dat - meaning comes only to be in the process of interaction.
Er zijn tal van instrumenten op de markt, die gebaseerd zijn op even zovele methoden, technieken en managementmodellen. De behoefte om gegevens snel en adequaat tot bruikbare informatie te verwerken vanuit een heldere visie,is een steeds terugkerende interne discussie waarbij we het toevoegen van een technisch element niet uit de weg gaan. Dit onderzoek wijst ons als DHV op de valkuilen en waarop we moeten letten bij het inpassen van technologie in adviestrajecten.
Ik dank Herman de Vries en de heren J. Dijkstra (IB-Groep), drs. R. Blankers (KPMG) en drs. D. van Holte (Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu) voor hun medewerking en input aan dit onderzoek. Het DHV team Noord-Nederland wenst Herman veel succes in zijn nieuwe baan bij de Noordelijke Ontwikkelingsmaatschappij.
Groningen, 16 september 2008
F.J. Nijland
Sr. Adviseur Bestuur & Management
Table of content
1 Introduction 6
1.1 Enablers of this research 6
1.2 Defining the problem 7
2 Problem structuring 10
2.1 Research questions 10
2.2 Defining the messiness 11
2.3 Designing the research 14
3 Theoretical framework 18
3.1 Defining collaboration 18
3.2 Research scope 20
4 Applying theory to municipal collaboration 21
4.1 Contingency theory 21
4.2 Environmental conditions 23
4.3 Goal system 23
4.4 Technical sub-system 25
4.5 Human sub-system 26
4.6 Managerial system 29
4.7 Size 30
5 Developing propositions 33
5.1 Backgrounds of Veendam 33
5.2 Goal sub-system 33
5.3 Technical sub-system 34
5.4 Human sub-system 34
5.5 Managerial sub-system 35
5.6 Conclusion 36
6 Case study 37
6.1 Case protocol 37
6.2 Backgrounds on Haren 38
6.3 Results 38
6.4 Conclusion 40
7 Expert review 41
7.1 Delphi protocol 41
7.2 Analysis on the round one questionnaire 43 7.3 Analysis on the round two questionnaire 47 8. Reconciling the initial framework 54
8.1 additional determinants 54
8.2 Discerning the phases of collaboration 55
9. Discussion & conclusion 58
10. Recommendation for further research 59 11 Epilogue on the managerial implications Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
12 Reflection on the process Fout! Bladwijzer niet gedefinieerd.
References 63
Scientific sources 63
Other sources: 67
Appendices 68
I DESTEP 69
II Rich picture 71
III Mapping of methodologies based on Mingers (2000) 72
IV Interviews 74
V Financial analysis on Haren 81
VI Delphi questionnaire round one 82
VII Delphi results from round one 84
VIII Delphi questionnaire round two 91
IX Delphi results from round two 97
1 Introduction
1.1 Enablers of this research
This research is focusing at the company DHV, which is a global engineering and consulting firm. More specific this research is focusing at the department of “Bestuur & Organisatie” , which can be interpreted as governance &
organization. The department came into existence in 2004, with the shift from traditional technical consultancy towards a more integral approach where besides technical expertise, process and organizational expertise was brought to the customer. The main goal for the department was to form a trustworthy partner for sustainable advises and support with organizational issues.1
Bestuur & organisatie (B&O) expertise is in organizing and structuring individuals and groups. Within the market plan of B&O their fields of operation are restrained to:
(1) Support to governmental departments, who are facing changing laws and governmental rules. (examples are implementation of WABO and WRO),
(2) Applying organizational scans (dutch: doorlichten),
(3) Advisements within outsourcing and cooperation problems, (4) Interim management.
70% of the customers of B&O are Governmental organizations. Within the market plan of B&O one can notice that from the governmental organizations, municipalities are its most important customers. The consultants of B&O are facing difficulties in the way they enact their organizational scans. In April 2008 B&O proposed a theoretical approach, where the University of Groningen was involved. An agreement was put up to conduct a research which judges upon the criteria needed within an organizational scan.
At this moment B&O is applying the organizational scans on a limited set of problem situations. B&O is however questioning how to extend these services and how to shape its organizational scans towards a broader field of application. Consultants of B&O share the reasoning that a scan can be helpful on several stages of B&O’s value creation process. After an initial discussion with several consultants from the B&O department it became clear that there is a consensus about the added value of organizational scans. This remains however a broad description of the intended research.
One could say that applying an organizational scan is an approach used to structure and diagnose the problem contexts that B&O its customer is experiencing. When considering the marketplan of B&O one can notice that its most important customers are municipalities. After the preliminary conversations with consultants of B&O, a debate among the goals of the research was deployed. Within this debate the differences between intended goals for a scan became visible. Every consultant has its own experiences and perception of problem situations and has its own ideas about an ideal tool to structure its findings. What is clear however is that one can’t create a jack of all trade. An explicit choice needs to be made among the intended directions and scope of the research. To create awareness within the department, the researcher and several consultants of the department drew rich pictures2 to get to grips with the problem context. Within appendix II one can find the digitalized version of the resulting rich picture. Within this agreement the stakeholders determined that the focus should lie on collaboration issues. The latter imposes a sharp focus on a specific type of problem that B&O is facing.
As many researchers within the field of municipal collaboration mentioned3, municipalities are utilizing their collaborative initiatives through diverse forms and methods. Where some municipal organizations attained a merger, many are grabbling to keep their local autonomy and, are thereby searching for alternative forms of structural
1 Source: Market report B&O, march 2008
2 Rich pictures method provided by the Soft System Methodology (checkland,1985)
3 Theunis and Mouwen (1994)
collaboration. The aim of this research is to explore the factors underlying the rationale for municipalities to submerge their activities and processes. This leads to the formulation of a framework, which structures and improves decision making processes within the advisement towards municipalities.
This chapter will set the outline of the research through defining the area of concern, in which the situation of DHV will be aggravated. This will postulate the basic assumptions on which the direction of this research will be based. The researcher will then declare its research question and propose a methodology and framework of ideas which is suitable to deal with the stated problem.
1.2 Defining the problem 1.2.1 New public management
Prior to the conditions of this research, a deeper understanding of externalities of B&O that enabled the necessity for an “organizational scan” is desirable. B&O is not a single entity, who’s grabbling to define an organizational scan. Many consultancy firms within the field of governance and organizations have found it necessary to develop their own organizational scan. For what reason? And even more important why do customers, like municipalities, value these ‘blueprint’ methods? A direction for solution is that customers are increasingly demanding an objective and validated quantitative measure of the “performance”. Customers can thereby compare its performance with the ‘best practice’. Performance in this sense is a normative measure, and is always constrained to certain dimensions. The increased interest in performance measurement has its roots back in the 1980s. At that moment a number of countries strived towards ‘new public management’, which is in its essence a shift towards higher accountability (Hood, 1995). In the Netherlands the premises of New Public Management have been rejected explicitly or implicitly. When following the reasoning of Noordhoek (2005), the principles behind New Public Management evoke an allergic reaction by a rational, non political approach to people and organizations. However, over time, many countries including the Netherlands have implemented certain principles of the New Public Management concept in the past 10 years. As mentioned by Noordhoek (2005), no public manager would reject the goals of public management, which holds a “change from traditional bureaucracies towards a result oriented and transparent form of government, directed and supported by efficient and effective public managers.” As one can imagine, the approach nested in the New Public Management concept was conflicting with the culture of the public organization.
1.2.2 Defining municipalities
When considering the modern organizational structure of a municipality, there are diverse forms recognizable. In the Netherlands there are about 500 municipalities which all have their local autonomy, and thereby structured their organizations by their own demeanor. According to Theunis and Mouwen (1994) the classical organizational structure of a municipality is in terms of Mintzberg (1983) the divisionalized structure. The prime coordination mechanism is accordingly, the standardization of outputs. This structure is what Mintzberg refers to as “a quasi autonomous set of entities coupled together by a central administrative structure”. Mintzberg mentioned that divisions within the organization can exibit a variety of structures. The best fitted option is the machine bureaucracy, where the technostructure exerts its pull for standardization of work processes” (Mintzberg, 1983). In the picture drawn below (Figure 1) an example of the divisional structure is pictured. It should be noticed that while every model is a simplification of reality, this picture neglects crisis management, where police and firemen are under direct authority of the mayor.
Figure 1 Structure of municipalities
This classical configuration is still widely recognizable within municipal organizations. According to Theunis and Mouwen (1994) there are two widely adopted division structures: that is on the one hand the Machine Bureaucracy and on the other hand the Professional Bureaucracy. This structure is according to Mintzberg (1983) suitable within a situation were the environment is stable but complex, which is almost similar to the machine bureaucracy. The difference can be recognized within the level of standardization, where in the professional bureaucracy the skills are standardized. Linkages are present between higher and lower public bodies, and secondly with equal public bodies.
In recent literature there is very little attention for the organizational structure of municipalities. The used literature is published at the beginning of the 1990s and could be outdated. At this moment we can’t find an explanation what caused this loss of interest. However one could seriously doubt the statement that the machine bureaucracy and the professional bureaucracy are the only structures that can be found within municipal divisions.
Within project groups or smaller more innovative divisions, structures like the adhocracy could appear. For the time being we assume that divisions are mostly structured along the machine and professional bureaucracy.
1.2.3 Collaboration through time
To get a grip on the faced issues at B&O, several advisory reports at DHV were analyzed. These indicated that all collaboration issues held the constraint that local autonomy and identity should be left untouched. At first sight this seems like an extraordinary constraint. However, it can be explained when taking a historical perspective. Elzinga (1995) described in his book the history of lower public bodies: Municipalities, are according to his viewpoint a legacy from a covenant that was formed in the year 1848. This covenant leads to the decentralized unitized state, which is a consensus among liberals and conservatives within the Netherlands. The constitution provided the first doorway for municipal collaboration, which reveals that municipal collaboration isn’t something new. This view on governance is firstly drawn by Thorbecke. At that time municipalities were financial independent and had a large bundle of tasks and responsibilities. After the second world war, the task fields and financial independency were constrained. According to Elzinga (1995) as a consequence of the financial problems between the central government and municipalities, caused by a scarcity of resources due to the effects of the second world war. Secondly, discussions about control systems of central government and lower public bodies arose and thirdly the environmental tendency of emerging
‘economies of scope’ in the private sector, could no longer be neglected. Central government made several incremental changes to the municipal laws and regulations. In the early 1950s Committee-Koelma advised to implement a fourth governance layer, which was rejected by the central government. In the late 1950s the ‘Wet Gemeenschappelijke Regelingen’ (WGR), which can be translated into the law of communal settlement, was implemented. The purpose of this legislation was to structure and stimulate municipal collaboration, within the current three layer structure of: central government, regions and municipalities.
Korsten (2006) touched upon the criticism of this governmental intervention. Firstly, the legislation was overwhelmed by its own success. At the early 1980s there were about 1500 regulations to streamline municipal collaboration. Due to a lack of overview, municipalities as well as higher public bodies suffered difficulties to control collaboration between municipalities. Secondly they originated an emerging stream of settlements, which squeezed the levels between municipalities and regional governance layers. Thirdly, through their local autonomy, municipalities can put up their collaborative actions voluntarily. This induces a situation where smaller municipalities are protecting their local freedom (often referred to as ‘couleur locale’), while counteracting collaboration with other municipalities.
Through time the central government tried to intervene within the pounding law of communal settlement.
Korsten (2006) summarized the many changes within this law and memorizes that after the second intervention in 1985, there still exists a governance gap between the regional and municipal public body. Also the voluntary nature of municipal collaboration restrained the decisiveness within problems that spread beyond the municipal borders. In 1993 the law was tightened up, in an attempt to create an integral and thus decisive public body. After some time of silence, the ‘WGR-plus’ is adopted, within this law the central government creates an extra public body for specific regions. To summarize these interventions, the central government tried, through adaptations of laws and regulations, to fill the gap between regions and municipalities. Their means to intervene was mainly restricted to the law of communal settlements. These interventions however never anticipated the exigencies of municipalities.
Thereby municipalities and researchers within the field attained the quest in search for alternate configurations for their collaborations. Where until this early history the collaboration was shaped along a public legal form, the answer to these the problems were within the private legal forms of collaboration.
1.2.4 Motivation for collaboration
Within this paragraph attention is drawn upon the enablers for collaborative initiatives. According to Theunis and Mouwen (1994) there are 4 important influences on the services of municipalities, which are: (1) external parties, (2) services of colleague municipalities, (3) citizens, and (4)higher public bodies. Theunis and Mouwen identified these influences on the theoretical background of Porters five forces model, that determines the rivalry within a private industry. According to this analysis there is an increasing dependency on External parties and based on the idea that the market can exert tasks more efficient, public organizations are increasingly outsourcing their tasks.
Parallel to this drive of outsourcing, public organizations are expanding their outsourcing initiatives within public organizations, creating economies of scale, and thereby stabilizing their legitimacy. As Terpstra (2003) acknowledged, citizens are demanding increased service levels. Municipalities are being compared with private firms and citizens expect equal service levels. Municipalities are semi autonomous organizations, with freedom to make their governance mechanisms and policy within the boundaries of higher public bodies. However, a large set of tasks are enacted through collaborative participation of higher and lower public bodies. Higher public bodies have the authorities to change these boundaries and thereby change the level of autonomy of municipalities. Also municipal budgets are assigned by the higher public bodies, and thereby determine whether a municipality can still survive, or needs to be merged into larger entities, with a consequential loss of local autonomy. This imposes a tension on the relationship with higher public bodies, where local autonomy of municipalities is their main concern. As one can notice all the mentioned influences are imposing a pressure on the services of municipalities.
While Theunis and Mouwen (1994) acknowledge the importance for municipal collaboration, their main solution space lies within the creation of more advanced information systems. As seen from the perspective of the author, suited as a very narrow solution space. Reconsidering Business Process Reengineering literature, Davenport (1992) is noting that advanced information systems can act as an enabler for process improvement, but admits that next to information systems, information in general, the human system, are important enablers that should not be
neglected. To objectify the noted influences and the way in which they portrayed the enablers for municipal collaboration, a triangulation of sources was put up. Viewing the literature of Theunis and Mouwen (1994) as a first source of information, the second source of information is more nested within the real world, environmental influences are captured through experiences of advisors at B&O and more informal sources like newspapers. This analysis was structured through the so called DESTEP analysis (appendix 1). This approach takes a different perspective than the previously named research. Within this type of analysis the choice of organizational boundaries is arbitrary; it’s however performed parallel to the research of Theunis and Mouwen, which implies that it is considered from the service perspective. The comparison with recent developments through de DESTEP analysis leads to the conclusion that municipalities majorly influenced its customer and higher public bodies, but sustains the view of Theunis and Mouwen (1994).
Taking the previously mentioned view of Elzinga (1995) as a third source, he starts in systemic terms by viewing the governance system at whole and thereby explaining the externalities that imposed system changes over time. His focus is on the WGR. When summarizing the research of Elzinga (1995), environmental conditions impose a pressure on the governance system. Different environmental characteristics require different governance styles.
Therefore the central government tries to intervene into the current legal system and tries to adapt it to the needed characteristics.
2 Problem structuring
2.1 Research questions
Mingers & Rosenhead (2001) mentioned the well-known aphorism that “a problem well put is half solved”.
Both Jackson (2000) and Mingers & Rosenhead (2001) argue that defining the problem is far from obvious. The area of concern set ground for a shared value, which can be stated as, the exploration of the factors underlying the rationale for municipalities to merge their activities and processes.
One can notice, that through the environmental conditions and consequently the decisions of higher public bodies, the autonomy of municipalities is constantly shifting. One can imagine that this enables a culture of protectionism, where municipalities are battling to keep their local autonomy on the same level. In comparison with the described historical perspective, higher public bodies are saddled with difficulty of overcoming the impediments of the Dutch three layer control system. Their main hope for municipalities lies within alternative forms of collaboration.
As within every complex situation, different stakeholders hold a different point of view. The main concern for B&O is to please its customer with the advise he asks for. Given these constraints, municipalities are the leading stakeholders within this research. The law of communal settlement was said to be of limited value in the struggle to keep local autonomy, thereby municipalities are seeking for alternate forms, to structure their collaboration.
The previous chapters defined the empirical situation that the researcher needs to deal with. Towards the problem definition the research is focussed on collaboration. The underlying goal of this research for DHV is to support decision making processes for issues that focus on municipal collaboration. However, one needs to keep in mind that this is a solution towards an output goal, since the focus of municipal organizations is to create a more efficient and effective organization, to cope with the previously mentioned environmental pressures. Thus this imposes a scoped issue around the wide variety of problems the consultant of DHV is faced with.
With this dogma about the case the leading question for this research will evolve in:
What internal determinants affect the willingness to collaborate between two municipalities or specific task fields within municipalities ?
Collaboration refers to an act to work together, especially joint intellectual effort.4 With internal determinants, the researcher is pointing at the organizational properties, nested within a single municipality. The willingness points at the general positive attitude of the organization towards the issue of collaboration. The researcher assumes that there exists a causal relationship with these internal determinants and the general attitude of the organization that intends to collaborate.
Before one can answer the main question, the focus should lie upon the research of the taken assumptions and the causalities being made. This is portrayed through the following questions:
- How can one structure the phenomena of municipal collaboration?
- What internal contingency factors may impose an influence on the willingness to collaborate?
- Are the mentioned contingencies vicarious for the willingness to collaborate?
- Do the involved stakeholders agree upon the determinants?
The formulated questions determine the structure of this thesis implicitly. The first two questions are more focused towards theorizing. As a first triviality one needs to understand the concept of collaboration. To be more specific, one needs to understand the conceptual differences of collaborate networks. This helps to discern different empirical examples of collaboration. The second question is focused on diagnosing, where one is seeking for conceptual causes that may help to explain the specific choice for collaboration. The last question is answered by collecting empirical evidence, where on the one hand the determinants are portrayed upon a case of municipal collaboration, and on the other hand, are reviewed by an expert panel, which forms a delegation of the involved stakeholders..
While the sub-questions are enabling a basic structure for this research, one should provide more attention to the way in which one is answering the question. From the researcher’s point of view, the chosen approach will have an important influence on the results of this research. Within the following section, the chosen methodology will be clarified.
2.2 Defining the messiness
A validated and structured research can’t be reached without the clarification of its methodology. Within this research, the researcher is struggling with choice of methodology. In the previous chapter, the goal and research question were formulated. Within this chapter a methodological clarification will be put up. The starting point is however the dichotomy of the problem context. The stated question points towards a hard problem, where one is searching for hard measures to qualify the configuration of collaboration. When reaching back to the terms of Ackoff (1999), how messy is the faced problem?
It’s important to realize that the messiness of the problem is mainly determined by the perception of the researcher. Until this stage of research an expert modus was brought up, through assuming that the stated problem reflects the perceived problem by the different stakeholders. One could take a different approach to the problem, which leaves the question on what hallmarks one is determining the approach. Jackson (2000) tried to overcome this difficulty through formulating a methodology for choosing a methodology, referred to as a meta-methodology. This approach is named System of Systems Methodologies (SOSM) and is based on the structuring of problems along two different dimensions of complexity. On the on hand the system complexity, which can vary from simple to complex. And on the other hand the social complexity, which entails the interests and values of people. The social complexity can vary from a situation were people exist in a genuine agreement about their objectives, sharing values and interests, to a situation of increasing divergence of values and interests in a pluralist relationship, were the values and interests are different, but people share enough commonalities to make it worthwhile to sustain membership of a
4 The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004.
“coalition”. Or at the other side of the spectrum, the relationship can be conflictual or coercive, were values and interests are incommensurable and power comes to bear (jackson, 2000).
This results in a grid with six different “ideal type” of problem contexts. Each problem context has a different approach, with different methodologies. The advantage is that one looks beyond the paradigms of Burrel & Morgen (Jackson, 2000). However, the difficulty of using this framework is that in the end, the researcher decides upon the stated dimensions, based on his assumption about the problem context. Jackson (2000) agrees upon this and formulated a heuristic, called Total System Intervention (TSI). The main goal for this heuristic was to attain pluralism about the problem context. One should be very careful in applying TSI, because of the functionalistic approach of different problem contexts. And despite the criticism on its functionalist approach one could still question if the researcher can decide upon the parameters within the heuristic. Mingers & Rosenhead (2001) state about SOSM that
“there is the assumption that every problem context can be fitted unambiguously, at the outset of a study, into one of the six resulting categories.” Notwithstanding the criticism on SOSM, it can be a very helpful framework that simplifies and structures problems to choose a suitable approach. In this research we’ve chosen to carefully monkey with SOSM in order to shape the choice of methodology.
Organizations are mostly viewed as complex entities, with multiple dimensions; from that point of view one can motivate it as complex. Vermuri (1978) is valuing the perceived complexity through four system characteristics.
Firstly, the visibility of the different attributes in the system. Municipal organizations are to complex to identify all different attributes. Secondly, the predictability of the municipalities is limited since one can only determine the legal boundaries of municipalities and the enablers that causes changes of the system. Thirdly, being an open system imposes interactions with its environment and causes the system to be changed over time. Fourthly, political, ethical and cultural issues are having an influence on the behavior of the system. Considering this typology leads to a conclusion that the system considered embraces complexity.
When considering the interaction among decision makers, or to put it in other words, the nature in which stakeholders view upon the stated problem, one is confronted with a dilemma. Viewing the nature of decision making as a conflictual or even coersive situation, one assumes that stakeholders do not share any common ground and thereby possess conflicting objectives which can’t be directed towards a common goal. If so there is nothing to be reached within the problem context, which inevitably reflects the difficulty with this relationship among decision makers. Let’s take one step back and reflect on the different stakeholders within the process. As mentioned previously the focus lies with municipalities and the consultants at B&O. While there seems to be plurality within the nature of decision makers, explained by the consultants whose main goal is to make a profit out of municipalities, we assume that there is consensus about the idea that there is a need for a framework. Notably, the consultant of B&O tries to satisfy the demands of its customer. Consequently the decision makers act in a unitary interplay upon the stated problem. A Unitary view on the nature of decision making reflects on a higher aggregation level the way in which most relevant stakeholders perceive the problem context. However, when considering dilemmas within the problem context there may appear disagreement at the organizational level. This is reflected on how collaboration is perceived by the different stakeholders. If stakeholders are perceiving the goal to collaborate as more important then the means to collaborate, one can imagine that not all involved and affected stakeholders agree upon this compulsory act to collaborate with other parties. Between the lines, one can explain this through the road towards the intended goal, often referred to as the strategy. Mintzberg (1978) discerned three types of strategy:
(1) Intended strategies that get realized; these may be called deliberate strategies.
(2) Intended strategies that do not get realized, perhaps because of unrealistic expectations, misjudgments about the environment, or changes in either during implementation; these may be called unrealized strategies.
(3) Realized strategies that were never intended, perhaps because no strategy was intended at the outset or perhaps because, as in (2), those that were got displaced along the way; these may be called emergent strategies.
Assuming that the intended strategy is to shift into collaborate networks, this can be conferred into a deliberate or unrealizable strategy. This most often is a top-down approach where municipalities are forced into collaborate networks. Involved and affected stakeholders, and thus the individuals within municipalities are having their own goals and strategies, and are consequently within a pluralist relationship.
If the collaboration is seen as a solution towards a more effective government and collaboration is an emerging strategy, this profiles a more dynamic approach towards the road of a more efficient and effective government. One could imagine that due to environmental conditions, stakeholders perceive collaboration with more openness and are thereby over time mainly choosing for collaboration. This may be a more unitarily process, but still reflects aspects of a pluralist relationship.
Thus restraining the research towards a unitary or pluralist relationship would reflect a limited view upon the problem situation. As Mingers (2004) argues that problems within the real world are inevitably multidimensional. Within a messy situation, relevant aspects that may appear can be related to issues from a physical, material, social, political or personal paradigm. As Mingers (2004) discusses: “Different approaches tend to focus on different aspects of the situation and so multimethodology is necessary to deal effectively with the full richness of the real world”
Taking this premises into contemplation and reconsidering the SOSM framework of Jackson and Keys (1984), noted within Figure 2, the problem context is placed within the typology of a complex unitary as well as pluralist typology, where it also contains some aspects of a simple problem. However one needs to admit that this choice always bares a certain amount of subjectivity. After all as Mingers & Rosenhead (2004) refer to that in the end, a choice of methodology can’t be objectified and problems will always deviate from “ideal types”. And furthermore that
“Since the use of [methodology] is a form of “organized finding out”, it is quite possible that this process will change the understanding of the problem context.”
- Operation research - System dynamics
- Viable system dynamics - General system theory - Socio-technique - Contingency theory
- Strategic assumptioning
servicing and testing - Critical system heuristics
- Interactive planning - Soft sytem methodology - ?
Unitary Pluralist Coersive
Simple
Complex
Problem context
Figure 2 System of system methodologies (Jackson & Keys, 1984)
With the noted classification of the problem context, a wide variety of methodologies can be found to provide the mastering of the problem. In Figure 2 the system of system methodologies is schemed, and one can notice that within the systemic approach of this research, Beers viable system dynamics as well as the contingency theory are found to be methodologies that fit within the context of a unitary approach. Both concepts are unlike the other noted approaches within the framework, methodologies that are very strong at diagnosing organizational problems. As Mingers and Rosenhead (2001) mentioned, they are rather abstract models or generic blueprints for helping to design the structure of organizations. Where one could doubt whether it’s possible to fully understand the approach of Viable System Dynamics, in its basics this approach is a highly abstract and mathematical model. In this research the
preference goes towards the contingency theory. This theory is according to Jackson (2000) based upon the organism analogy, where organizations are viewed as consisting of a series of interdependent subsystems.
As Drazin and Ven (1985) noted structural contingency theory has dominated the study of organizational design and performance many years. Many other theories are building upon the basic premise of the contingency theory, that there must be a fit between context and structure if an organization wants to perform well. This approach neglects the pluralist views upon the problem situation. When using the Soft System Methodology, one is taking a different perspective upon the problem context, the focus of this approach is on the complexity of systems, with special care for social complexity. This approach is better capable to deal with pluralists view upon the problem situation. As Checkland ( 1985) refers to it:
“Any situation in which human beings try to act together will be complex simply because individuals are autonomous.
Shared perceptions –essential for corporate action- will have to be negotiated, argued, tested”
The characteristics of this methodology are that one is entering a joint process of organized finding out. It thereby focuses on group learning, with the aim to build consensus around a perceived problem.
In the end one is faced with difficulty to choose a specific methodology. However, while Jackson (2000) focuses on necessity to choose a specific methodology, Mingers and Brocklesby argue that one can combine different methodologies. In the following paragraph we will therefore elaborate on the methodology that suits the requirements of this research.
2.3 Designing the research
Within this chapter a research instrument will be developed, next to the guiding procedures and rules. In the previous chapter the focus was on the development of a theoretical framework that describes and structures phenomena of the real world. This framework is the main input for this chapter.
With the development of a research instrument one is faced with the dilemma of a multimethod approach. How can one combine the two different viewpoints on problem solving? Considering SSM, this approach is an action research methodology, where the researcher reflects upon its own involvement. Furthermore, it is a methodology which entails a learning loop. An iterative process, by which one aims to optimize the conceived problem situation. The limited time-frame of this research restrains the capability for multiple learning loops. The contingency theory could provide a diagnosing role within this research. How can the contingency theory be placed towards the pluralist paradigm of SSM? And furthermore, is it necessary to shift the contingency theory towards another paradigm?
Clearly there is the need for a strong methodological framework for the stated problem. To start with, this research has multiple aspects. The researcher therefore proposes to split methodologies into components and combine them into an ad-hoc methodology, which can be applied on the specific problem situation. Mingers and Brocklesby (1997) point out that this approach is the most complex form of multimethodology. According to these authors one faces problems in doing so. The first most important problem that needs to be addressed, is one of philosophical kind: the paradigm incommensurability. Each specific methodology makes fundamental assumptions that –often implicitly- influence the approach and solution space to the problem situation. While one could try to avoid this incommensurability and thereby perceive it as obstacle that needs to be overcome. Alternatively, one could accept the incommensurability or as Mingers and brocklesby (1997) refer, detach the technique from its original paradigm. However, most important is to be aware of the paradigm of a methodology. A second issue that should be addressed is the cultural feasibility. This issue focuses on the “extend to which individuals, values, beliefs and basic assumptions might stand in the way of moving from one paradigm to another” (Mingers and Brocklesby, 1997). This imposes difficulties for both the researcher as well as the stakeholders. The third issue is the cognitive feasibility, which also reflects the tension of the personality and its ability to cope with different mental models. The assumption is that the researcher has the knowledge and skills to deal with both cognitive and cultural feasibility issues.
At this point we need to address how to use “the best of both”, Mingers (2000) proposed an approach to the
“process of multimethod design that incorporates various frameworks and techniques for selecting and linking methods”
This is based upon the idea that, through the project, one can discern several stages. The graph in Figure 3 shows that within the initial stage the focus lies upon the appreciation of the problem. A second notice is that each phase is not moved through sequentially.
Appreciate
Analyse
Assess
Act
Time through project
Figure 3 Phases through a research (Mingers and Brocklesby, 1997)
To reflect on the stated phases throughout a research, the focus lies more upon theorizing and not so much upon the intervention. This implies that the role of acting is somewhat smaller in comparison with the picture drawn by Mingers and Brocklesby.
The dominant paradigm of this research is imposing a functional approach, where we aim at incorporating pluralist aspects of the perceived problem situation at some phases. Within the previous chapter the problem situation is sketched by the various relevant stakeholders. We’ve used the rich picture technique to express the situation, additionally we put up a DESTEP analysis. The rich picture technique, derived from checklands SSM, is capable to deal with multiple points of view. The DESTEP analysis is suited to incorporate the aspects of the material world. When referring to the phases of a research one should also acknowledge the different dimensions of a problem situation, within the study of Mingers and Brocklesby the domains of Habermas are brought up. According to this conception, there are three different dimensions: The material world, which is the objective world that we can observe, the personal world, that we do not observe, but experience, and our social world, which is the world in which we participate. As Minger and Brocklesby mentioned, in real world situations all dimensions are relevant. A methodology tends to focus on a specific dimension. The contingency theory, for example, accentuates aspects of the material world. These different dimensions and the earlier mentioned phases of a research are supportive in the design of a multimethod research for which Mingers and Brocklesby constructed a supportive framework, which is shown in Table 1.
Appreciate Analyse Assess Act
Social
Social practices, power relations
Distortions, conflicts, interests
Ways of altering existing structures
Generate empowerment and enlightment
Personal
Individual beliefs, meaning, emotions
Differing perceptions and personal
rationality
Alternative conceptualizations
and constructions
Generate accommodations
and consensus
Material Physical circumstances
Underlying causal structure
Alternative physical and
structural arrangements
Select and implement best
alternatives Table 1 Framework for mapping methodologies (Mingers and Brocklesby, 1997)
Within appendix III one can find the mapping of several methodologies onto the framework of Mingers and Brocklesby. These mappings clarified in which way methodologies are suited to deal with different aspects of the conceived problem situation.
We propose to adopt several methodologies and techniques to entangle the problem, while we adopted the DESTEP analysis and rich picture technique to appreciate the situation The analysis and assessment phase are decomposed to the material world and captured through the contingency theory. As mentioned by Jackson (2000) the contingency theory is well suited to capture functional, objective information. The contingency theory can provide a strong theoretical framework for diagnosing the problem situation. However, one needs to choose a technique by which one structures the empirical information. A case study methodology seems, with the stated why and how questions, an appropriate means to structure this information. Within the terms of Stuart et al (2002) this research attempts to extend and/or refine the existing theories and thereby focuses on the applicability and generalizeability of the existing theories. They therefore propose to focus on a contextual case study. Although a theoretical framework is conceptualized, the research is facing a diffusing boundary between the phenomenon and the context, where one is struggling to maintain a holistic view upon the problem.
A case study provides limited grounds for generalization of the determinants; furthermore a case study relies upon the knowledge and observations of the researcher. To generate a more holistic view upon the problem context, a verification of the determinants will be gathered by reviewing the determinants through the eyes of experts.
Arguments for this approach are that the aim for this research is to support decision making for the consultants of DHV. Their dominant stakeholders do need to agree with the selected determinants. A method, well suited for capturing expert viewpoints, is the DELPHI method. This method encompasses the power relationships between individuals. One should be conscious of the fact that this method is used as a qualitative method to create a consensus within the group of experts. After this deliberation, we can place the additional methods on the earlier mentioned framework of Mingers and Brocklesby. This is schemed within Table 2.
Appreciate Analyze Assess Act
Social Case study
Personal Rich picture Rich picture Case study Delphi
Material DESTEP Contingency approach
Contingency
approach Delphi
Table 2 Multi methodology design of this research
While this research is shaped as a result of an iterative process, this paper structured the different steps and will describe it sequentially. To provide transparency on the different steps of this research, we will describe how the different techniques fit within the different steps of this research.
As a first step, the problem situation is expressed, where the main objective was to isolate the real world occurrences that seem to be relevant to the stated problem definition. The DESTEP analysis and rich picture technique, derived from SSM, sketched the area of concern. This is described within chapter one. Within chapter two we will focus on answering the first sub-question which is stated, how can one structure the phenomena of municipal collaboration? Through a literature review, we will provide theoretical backgrounds on the phenomenon of municipal collaboration.
The contingency theory will be used to diagnose the situation, supported by general theories and the outcomes of the rich picture analysis. As a result the researcher will deduct propositions. As Yin (1994) mentioned:
“without such propositions, an investigator might be tempted to collect ‘everything’, which is impossible to do” . We’re using the propositions to converge the empirical research, and thereby making the research intelligible to the researcher. This focuses on the sub-question: What internal contingency factors may impose an influence on the decision to collaborate? Through initial interviews these variables will be assessed and will result into a premature framework of variables that influence the willingness to collaborate. We will attempt to verify the propositions by a case study, which needs to provide an answer on the sub-question: Are the mentioned contingencies essential for the willingness to collaborate? Finally, the researcher attempts to reach consensus among a group of experts, that form a delegation of the involved stakeholders. Through the iterative process of DELPHI, the researcher puts up a debate among the experts, which answers the sub-question: Do the involved stakeholders agree upon the determinants?
Figure 4 gives a schematic representation of the proposed research design.
Figure 4 Proposed research design
The noted numbers within the picture are corresponding with the proposed chapters of this research. The exploration of determinants is provided by both theory and experts. While this is presented as a sequential order of events, it consisted of an iterative process of theoretical and empirical exploration.
3 Theoretical framework
Identifying differences within municipalities or more general, organizational differences from a inter- organizational perspective, has always been of strong interest to researchers and even more to practitioners and investors (Galaskiewicz, 1985, Ghoshal & Barlett, 1990, Barringer & Harrison, 2000, Luo et al, 2008). This interest is however mainly focused on the private sector, where the idea is to create economies of scale and thereby maximizing the return on investment. Before exploring the theory and concepts regarding the enablers for collaboration, one should discern the different types of collaboration and the theoretical impediments within municipalities. This is a basic pre-condition for a deeper understanding about municipal collaboration. And can thereby serve as a starting point for developing a decision support tool.
3.1 Defining collaboration
There are many authors who structured different forms of collaboration, as mentioned previously many of them based their frameworks on economic or legal principles (e.g. Tidd, 2004, Galaskiewicz, 1985). One of the first authors who structured collaboration from a social perspective is Warren (1967). His typology distinguishes between the ways in which organizational units interact in the decision-making process (Warren 1967). He identifies four different types of collaborative initiatives, namely: a unitary collaboration, federative collaboration, coalitional collaboration and social choice. Table 3 notes the contextual differences.
Table 3 Structure of different configurations for collaboration (Warren, 1967)
Warren (1967) discusses that municipalities can not structure their entities along an unitary interplay, due to conflicting goals of the different entities, which endorses the constrains named in many advisory reports of B&O:
‘protecting municipal autonomy and identity’. and thereby pursuing their own goals. What is very relevant to our case is the notion of Warren that his typology is capable for “a wheels-within wheels phenomenon”. This means that different aggregational levels can be structured along the framework of Warren. Accordingly from the authors point of view, the different aggregational levels are parallel to the intensity of a collaboration. Within a situation were collaboration is deployed on a few task fields, one can identify collaboration on a low hierarchical. We will discuss this later within this chapter.
The federative and coalitional typology are strongly related, their discerning characteristic is the way in which both parties formalize their collaborative initiatives. The federative typology points at the creation of formal procedures and the coalitional typology is mainly based on ad-hoc collaborative actions. To take the stated framework back to the defined area of concern, Elzinga (1995) recognized that the law of communal settlement satisfies the burden of many municipalities. Public agreements are likely to form an elementary concept for municipal
