Getting from intent to implementation (who needs to work together to - PDF document

Getting from intent to implementation (who needs to work together to make things happen, and how does collaboration work in practice) Partnering begins at home. Focus on public sector more than cross-sector partnerships with business and civil society Difference between stakeholders (interest – for and against) (public consultation and participation) and partners (active collaboration) Coordination Committee is not a partnership Lessons slide Partnerships (noun) – structure, and partnering (verb) – attitudes and behaviour Time for engagement with your partnering issues Every speaker has referred to partnering and collaboration Complexity Social capital 1

New ways of doing things 1

2

“Do the basics well” and “Exert influence beyond formal lines of authority” by actively building and sustaining networks, alliances, coalitions and partnerships beyond the civic centre. e.g. Citizen choices and behaviours: • Energy and water consumption • Public vs. private transport • Report or support fraud and corruption • Payment of municipal accounts • Drinking and driving • Racist behaviour Atanus Mockus, former Mayor, Bogota: Appeal to logic, and enforce regulations, does not necessarily change citizen behaviour. Need to understand and appeal to social and moral codes. 3

Cities and city leaders face unprecedented range of challenges • Climate change • Population growth and in-migration • Social and economic disparities • Environmental changes • Competitiveness and more jobs • Globalisation of sectors • Geo-political and geo-economic shifts • Livability, resilience and productivity outcomes Cross reference Aromar Revi (global) and Kelvin Campbell (local and micro) 4

Similarities and differences: Cities in developed and developing countries, e.g. aging population vs. youth population Edgar Pieterse: SA’s urban agenda CSP slides: spatial patterns matter and spatial reform is possible CSP Integration Zones: physical, institutional, urban management, attitudinal integration Inclusive, productive and sustainable cities? Complexity! Managing transitions • Balance expenditure on investment vs. consumption • Economic and social, not economic vs. social development • Multiple systems need to be reconfigured: firms and jobs to people, and people to economic nodes, jobs and opportunities • Competing interest and agendas need to be reconciled and aligned where possible • Short-term actions aligned with long-term vision • Cities don’t have all the authorities – need to influence other role-players to come to the party, including beyond your political and administrative boundaries (education, skills and health systems) • Not easy with existing institutional arrangements that separate and divide systems 5

6

Structure Approach: attitudes and behaviours 7

8

Partnering Readiness Assessment Shift from traditional linear planning and implementation process to adaptive change process: emphasis on the who and how as much as the what. Don ’ t always start with the vision (contesting visions) • Who needs to work together to achieve your objectives? : joined-up mandates, jurisdictions, plans, people, resources, communications, legitimacy • Check: Who is mandated to convene and drive the partnering process? : steering, rowing, cheering • How can we achieve a shared vision? Specifically, how does a municipal vision become a ‘whole of society’ vision? • Translate vision into common agenda? : Understand competing positions and interests. Identify potential overlapping interests. Alignment o long term goals with priorities and activities of the partners • How does this get translated into action? : focus on specific projects to build trust in action • Are the partners willing and able to work together? (institutional cultures and behaviours, collaborative leadership) Learning in action 9

Building trust in action 9

Get our own house in order before we can work with others 10

Medellin example : walk with the people, talk to the people, listen 11

12

13

‘Three wedge’ strategy for competitive cities • Mayors wedge: internal scope and capacity of the city administration • Intergovernmental relations wedge: external leverage with neighbouring jurisdictions and other tiers of government • Growth coalitions wedge: partnerships with stakeholders, especially private sector World Bank, Competitive Cities for Jobs and Growth, 2015 14

Project initiated 4 years ago on mandate from the WCG Cabinet. Berg River system both an issue (water quality, scarcity, sustainability, management) and an geographic area (Franschhoek to Laaiplek). Water one of top 3-4 future challenges in the Province (drought, competing user needs, impact of climate change). But WCG limited mandate (water pollution). Need to influence, leverage and steer other stakeholders to deliver better on their mandates Partnering approach adopted to address complexities of multiple and potentially overlapping mandates and jurisdictions in the river eco-system, e.g.: 1. Transversal: 6 WCG Departments. Multiple issues and mandates: pollution, informal settlements, pricing of water, agriculture production, employment, green economy 2. Inter-governmental: National Department of Water and Sanitation (core mandate), and municipalities (17 waste-water treatment plants, human settlements) 3. Cross-boundary: flows through 6 municipalities 4. Cross-sector: agriculture (irrigation, pollutants), tourism (sports, recreation), town economies, research institutes (data) 15

16

Measuring the effectiveness and efficiency of joint action: Example: BRIP Steering Committee Partnering Maturity Assessment (31 August 2016) What it measures: 1. Goals and objectives: The extent to which goals and objectives are shared and articulated jointly 2. Resources: The extent to which budgets, people, knowledge and ideas are combined 3. Activities: Evidence of co-created and jointly implementing solutions 4. Communications: Shared intelligence from common data and information, evidence of collective content and joint communications 5. Governance: Convening power, decision making, shared secretariat, administration, logistics 6. Processes, technologies and systems: Shared online workspaces, shared data, protocols for working together, accountability for activities in-between coordination meetings, common M&E tools, ability to share knowledge 7. Culture, attitudes, leadership: Degree of responsiveness and flexibility, inter- personal networks, trust and respect Ranking scale : 1-2 (centre) low level of partnering (uncoordinated or limited to informational exchange) to 3-4 (alignment seeking, some community of practice) to 5-6 (outer ring) higher level of partnering (specific partnering solutions) 17

Partnering Maturity Baseline Planning a partnering process Measuring collaborative value 18

Need to shift from ‘alignment seeking’ (3-4) to ‘partnering solutions’ (5-6) Governance of partnering: Structures and processes to not provide sufficient incentives to form relationships and work together. Collaboration is even disincentivised. Communication: develop stronger common identity. Promote activities and achievements of all the partners within a common system (e.g. Berg River eco- system)) rather than one’s own institution, programme or projects. (Note public sector corporate communications restrictions). Recommendation: Develop common brand platform, which allows all partners to tell their own story within a common narrative framework. Make better use of digital communications technology. 19

Address issue of competing and overlapping mandates and institutions. Recommendation: Start with the issue or problem that needs to be solved rather than the mandate of the particular department or sphere of government. 20

21

22

• Leaders are able to understand and communicate the big picture, not just their own personal interests and institutional agendas • Input and participation from all partners is valued • Leaders can translate divergent perspectives and ‘languages’ (political, managerial, citizen, technical, academic) into a shared understanding • The culture embraces diversity and difference to foster innovation • Partners have the combined capacity to engage, convene, facilitate, communicate, coordinate and influence • Leaders are self-aware, reflective and adaptive • Partners value spaces for experimentation and innovation Link to Insights palette What types of people do you need in your team? 23

Ronald Heifetz, Harvard Evolutionary biology: Adaptive change has three characteristics: • Preserve DNA essential for the species’ continued survival (Build on the past rather than jettison it) • Discard DNA that no longer serves the species’ current needs (leadership on adaptive challenges generates loss, and resistance to loss) • Create DNA arrangements to allow species to flourish in new ways (organisational adaptation occurs through experimentation and relies on diversity) Concept of adaptive leadership redefines leadership as an activity rather than a position of authority. Requires leadership that can orchestrate multiple stakeholder partnerships to define thriving (vision) and then realise it (implementation) 24

Edgar - culture 25

26

27