Evaluating Collaboration: The Solution to One Problem Often Causes Another

• Author: Chris Silvia
• Published date: 01 May 2018
• Date: 01 May 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/puar.12888

472 Public Administration Review • May | June 2018

Public Administration Review,

Vol. 78, Iss. 3, pp. 472–478. © 2017 by

The American Society for Public Administration.

DOI: 10.1111/puar.12888.

This manuscript was originally submitted

and accepted as an

Evidence in Public

Administration

article. The feature

editors, Kimberley R. Isett, Brian W.

Head, and Gary VanLandingham, are

gratefully acknowledged for their work

in soliciting and developing this content.

Effective with Volume 78, the

Evidence

in Public Administration

feature has been

discontinued.

Chris Silvia is assistant professor in the

Romney Institute of Public Management

at Brigham Young University. His research

focuses on leadership and management

in intersectoral networks. His work has

been published in

Journal of Public

Administration Research and Theory, Public

Administration, Public Administration

Review,

and the

Leadership Quarterly

.

E-mail: chris.silvia@byu.edu

Viewpoint

Abstract: Collaboration has become the predominant approach to solving complex public problems. This choice,

however, often is not driven by demonstrated effectiveness. Collaboration is instead chosen in the hope that a networked

arrangement will be more effective than individual organizations working on the issue alone. Questions regarding

collaborative effectiveness persist and constitute a significant challenge facing both public management practitioners

and public administration scholars. In light of the case study in this issue of Public Administration Review by

Maurits Waardenburg and colleagues, this article reviews the current thinking on the measurement of collaborative

performance and discusses steps that professionals can take to evaluate the effectiveness of their collaborative endeavors .

Chris Silvia

Brigham Young University

Evaluating Collaboration:

The Solution to One Problem Often Causes Another

P ublic organizations at all levels of government

routinely engage in collaborative arrangements

to deliver services and develop policy. The

public management literature offers many rationales

for these organizations ’ decision to collaborate.

Some believe that an increase in collaboration has

been spurred by the realization that the issues with

which public organizations are grappling are often

too complex, costly, or extensive for a single entity

to adequately address (O ’ Leary, Choi, and Gerard

2012 ). Organizations must therefore work together to

effectively confront these complex problems.

The promise of the effectiveness of collaboration

has resulted in many organizations turning to or

even requiring collaborative approaches. Drawing

on institutional theory (DiMaggio and Powell

1983 ), Skelcher and Sullivan ( 2008 ) discuss three

isomorphic explanations for the rise of collaborative

arrangements. The first is mimetic isomorphism.

Having been influenced by the prevalence of

collaborative networks, many government agencies

have attempted to mimic their peers and replicate

their success, or purported success, by collaborating.

Second, many professional organizations, such as the

International City/County Management Association,

and government organizations, such as the Canadian

Privy Council Office, the Australian Public Service

Commission, the New Zealand State Services

Commission, and the South African Department of

Public Service and Administration, have promoted the

practice of collaboration (normative isomorphism).

Believing that collaboration is the way of the future,

many professional organizations have established

collaboration as a norm of professional practice.

Finally, government agencies have been required to

pursue networked approaches through mandates from

higher levels of government (coercive isomorphism)

because of their presumed effectiveness (Bryson,

Ackermann, and Eden 2016 ). This belief has resulted

in higher levels of government making their funding

and support conditional upon a collaborative

approach as a hedge against risk (Bryson, Crosby and

Stone 2006 ; Ostrower 2005 ).

As Dickinson and Glasby ( 2010 ) point out, however,

collaborative approaches often are not adopted because

they are effective. Rather, collaborative approaches are

frequently pursued because of internal and external

pressures based on the assumption that collaboration

will be effective. In essence, for many, collaboration

has become a hammer and nearly all problems have

become nails. In absence of empirical evidence of

effectiveness, public decision makers have to make the

best of what they have available by relying on “anecdote

or efforts of comparators or [taking] cues from various

innovation awards” (Isett, Head, and VanLandingham

2016 , 22). As a result, many governments invest

substantial time and money in collaborative networks

without knowing whether what they are doing is

effectively tackling the problem or how to measure

the collaborative ’ s effectiveness (Koontz and Thomas

2006 ). Evidence of effectiveness is critically important

because it allows the network to “focus [its] efforts and

account for [its] behavior and the way [it spends its]

resources” (Koppenjan 2008 , 700).

Turning to collaboration to address a complex

problem has spawned a new problem: how to

measure collaborative effectiveness. “The difficulty

Stephen E. Condrey,

Associate Editor