Building Resiliency in Group Collaborations 

For projects that require collaboration among multiple agencies and stakeholders, recent research suggests a different approach to moving from the planning stage to implementation. 

Using four case studies, an NC State University researcher analyzed how 31 organizations collaborated on estuary conservation projects in the Delaware Inland Bays, Narragansett Bay, Tampa Bay and Tillamook Bay. The study found that these interagency collaborations started strong in earlier phases of the projects. 

“These organizations tend to do a good job of planning, but then stumble when it comes to transitioning from the planning process to actually executing the projects,” says Graham Ambrose, an assistant professor of public administration at NC State who co-authored a paper on the work.

Organizations do a good job of planning, but then stumble when it comes to transitioning … to actually executing the projects.

Ambrose noted that while both planning and implementation processes have been well-researched, there’s been less scholarship on whether interagency collaborations transition successfully from planning to implementation — or why that happens. This lack of research has bearing on why organizations often apply planning techniques to implementation processes, and vice versa, with varying degrees of success. 

“Planning and implementation are different activities, have different end goals, and require different organizational structures and responsibilities,” Ambrose says. “We think our contribution here is both practical and academic,” Ambrose says. “The primary goal of our work here is to offer more consistent and practical advice to practitioners.”

Smarter Steps for Collaborative Goals 

In examining why groups struggle to get projects off the ground, Ambrose found that overlapping planning and launch phases can help collaborative teams stay resilient in spite of organizational shifts and changes. More importantly, it sets them up to achieve their project goals. 

“Drawing on four case studies and the available literature, we find that groups are more likely to be successful if they adopt something we’ve termed a ‘mixed services transition approach,’” Ambrose says. 

Instead of jumping directly from planning to launch — and treating each phase as a separate, distinct process — mixing these phases can help. Ambrose suggests small-scale implementation activities while groups are still working to finalize their formal planning. 

Planning and implementation are different activities, have different end goals, and require different organizational structures and responsibilities.

For example, the group collaborations for the Inland Bays, Tampa Bay and Tillamook Bay conservation projects began shifting toward preliminary implementation activities while still in planning stages. Before finalizing formal plans, these groups piloted smaller projects to build support for their conservation efforts. 

“Implementing pilot projects can help identify previously unanticipated challenges or opportunities, which can benefit larger-scale implementation efforts later on,” Ambrose explains. 

Each group collaboration received funding from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Estuary Program, which provides planning grants to organizations focused on preserving estuary ecosystems. The groups that took steps to secure additional funding were able to transition to implementation more successfully later. 

“EPA funding is limited and can only be used for a defined range of projects,” Ambrose explains, which means some groups had to contend with the fact that certain project goals were ineligible for funding. Ambrose says that collaborations that found additional financial support were better positioned to implement their plans and maintain the interest and goodwill of their stakeholders. 

The groups that proved more resilient also devoted resources to outlining how the collaborative organization’s structure would change to help their collaborations shift toward implementation. 

“Many of these groups were unable to successfully transition from planning to implementation, stagnated and were dissolved,” Ambrose says. “Other groups made some headway, and some have proved to be sustainable and resilient.” 

Ambrose used an organizational research framework called the Collaborative Life-Cycle to explore transitions collaborations make as they move from planning to implementation. The study’s recommended mixed services approach adds an additional, intermediary step between planning and implementation. 

“While this additional stage took more time, those that did not engage in mixed services had less success in the [implementation] phase,” Ambrose’s study states. 

The paper, “Transitioning from planning to implementation: comparing collaborative governance and developmental dynamics in 4 watersheds,” is published open access in the journal Policy Sciences. The paper was co-authored by Mark Imperial, an associate professor of public administration at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington.

This article is based on a news release from NC State University.