We have done our best to give proper attribution wherever possible, should you wish to add a reference or attribution that we may have missed, Please let us know, and if you find this documentation of use, and wish to include it in your initiative, we kindly request proper attribution (Circular Oslo) as per the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
The agreement on a set of goals and ideal outcomes that clarify the mission and priorities of the collaboration
WHY IT MATTERS: Defining a common purpose links stakeholders together and creates a mutual understanding of the benefits of success.
Collaboration partners are likely to come to the collaboration with their own organization- and sector-specific priorities and mandates. The most effective collaborations acknowledge and welcome these differences: While they can complicate the process of agreeing on a shared vision, they go hand-in-hand with the complementary resources and capabilities that cross-sector partners bring to the partnership. For example, government’s prioritization of the rule of law and providing public services accompanies its unique power of policy, significant reach, and ability to impact public opinion; the market approach of the business sector results in its considerable financial resources and expertise in product and service delivery; the social-benefit-orientation of non-profits contributes to its deep community- and issue-level knowledge, and perceptions of legitimacy. As the collaboration works to develop its shared vision of success, partners should be encouraged to communicate their differing priorities openly and honestly, so that the collaboration can surface areas of shared agreement and mutual benefit, building a solid foundation for its work.
Partners are unlikely to commit to a collaboration unless they perceive the collaboration’s goals as aligning with their own. In some cases, this alignment is clear. In other cases, partners may consider more subtle ways that the collaboration’s vision is complementary to, or incompatible with, their own work, including assessing how the collaboration’s targeted outcomes support their own, even if the alignment is not explicit (e.g. the organization’s aim is to decrease childhood obesity, while the collaboration’s aim is to build a community farmer’s market); considering how successful collaboration outcomes may support their organization’s understanding of the issue; and evaluating whether contributions to the collaboration create tension with other organizational commitments. If partners cannot effectively balance the collaboration’s vision of success with their own organizational mission and goals, or if they perceive that the collaboration’s goals begin to deviate significantly from their own, partners’ commitment to the collaboration is likely to weaken.
The determination of financial and non-financial resources from existing and potential partners
WHY IT MATTERS: The process of evaluating resources allows partners to assess whether the collaboration has the resources to meet its goals.
In assessing existing expertise, assets, and networks, partners may find that the collaboration requires additional resources to achieve its goals. For example, the collaboration may find it lacks sufficient convening power, legal expertise, or access to information. Identifying such gaps can guide the collaboration in selecting additional partners. If a collaboration neglects to account for resources in its early stages, it exposes itself to higher operating risk and ultimately limits its capacity.
The creation of an environment in which partners can communicate openly, allowing the collaboration to address partners’ differing priorities
WHY IT MATTERS: By creating channels to hear and respond to partners’ perspectives and concerns, the collaboration acknowledges the conflicting opinions that can arise from the distinct values and goals of each partner, establishes a forum for consensus-building, and nurtures understanding across organizations and sectors.
Open environments are critical to nearly every aspect of collaboration design and implementation, particularly those that require partners to come to consensus concerning issues on which they are likely to have differing perspectives. Building a common fact base, agreeing on measures of success, and establishing a governance structure are just a few examples. In an open environment, partners trust each other, have equal opportunities to express their diverse opinions, and perceive that they are able to raise concerns without fear of retaliation. If the collaboration is not able to create this type of environment, partners may feel disenfranchised
The consensus among collaboration partners as to what facts relating to the issue are most relevant
WHY IT MATTERS: Joint recognition of what data is relevant to the collaboration allows participants to determine how best to proceed.
Collaboration partners may have sector-specific biases that influence their determination of what facts are relevant to the issue to be addressed by the collaboration. For example, a non-profit-sector partner may contend that facts related to accessibility are most relevant to guiding the collaboration’s understanding of the issue, while a business-sector partner may argue that facts related to operational efficiency are most relevant. Because agreement on a common fact base is critical to refining the collaboration’s understanding of the issue and honing the collaboration’s strategy, the collaboration should facilitate a process through which partners arrive at consensus on what facts are relevant. Without a common fact base, partners may perceive that one partner’s perception of the issue is dominant. This can leave partners with the perception that the issue is framed and understood by the collaboration in a way that does not accommodate their role in addressing the issue at hand.
Assessing qualitative and quantitative data related to the problem to be addressed by the collaboration.
Partners may have differing levels of familiarity with, and preferences related to, quantitative and qualitative analyses and information. By addressing each partner’s experience level and partiality, the collaboration can build a common fact base that incorporates both qualitative and quantitative information, resulting in a more comprehensive understanding of an issue. Without such a process, partners may be reluctant to incorporate analyses with which they are not familiar, limiting the collaboration’s understanding of the issue and, ultimately, its approach to addressing the issue.
The identification of indicators to be used in evaluating the progress and results of the collaboration
WHY IT MATTERS: Consensus among partners on what will define success for the collaboration in the short, mid, and long term creates accountability and helps keep the collaboration on track toward goals.
Cross-sector partners are likely to have differing views of what measures should be used to identify success. Instead of beginning with a discussion of indicators, partners may find it easier to first agree on criteria for evaluating and selecting indicators. Potential criteria the collaboration may want to consider include: How relevant are the indicators to the collaboration’s vision of success? How relevant are the indicators to the facts that have been agreed are applicable to the issue at hand? Are the indicators accessible during the time span of the collaboration? Do the indicators provide insight into the “living experiences” of those affected by the issue the collaboration aims to influence? If collaboration partners are unable to agree on indicators of success, the result can be diminished accountability within the collaboration and limited ability to make claims about the collaboration’s effect on target outcomes.
The collaboration should ensure that it possesses the expertise (e.g. experience using certain methodologies), access (e.g. to data sources or rights to interview), and resources (e.g. human resources or technology) to collect, evaluate, and manage data related to measuring success. If the collaboration determines that it does not have these capabilities, it may enlist additional partners or a third party. If partners fail to assess incapacity in these areas, the result could be delays in data collection, errors in data evaluation, and missteps in data management. Ultimately, this limits the collaboration’s ability to measure and report progress and outcomes.
The requirement that partners share data relevant to the collaboration’s efforts
WHY IT MATTERS: Openly sharing information, including disclosing sensitive facts, gives collaboration partners a more comprehensive understanding of the issue and builds trust among partners and in the collaborative process.
Partner organizations likely possess differing types of data related to the issue the collaboration aims to address. While some partners may come to the collaboration willing to share data, the collaboration will likely need to actively encourage partners to share information. Collaborations may choose to clearly communicate how information will further or enable the aims of the collaboration, develop information sharing protocols, establish confidentiality agreements, and more.
Partners will be more likely to share information if the collaboration can instill confidence that the data will be managed safely and securely. The collaboration may choose to entrust this task to partner who has a proven track record of successfully managing proprietary information, to a neutral third party, to a collaboration funder, or consider other possible management structures.
The deliberate allocation of decision-making authority according to area of expertise
WHY IT MATTERS: Assigning authority based on partners’ sector- or issue-specific knowledge allows the collaboration to benefit from the unique expertise of each partner and gives each partner a distinct stake in the collaboration.
By virtue of working in different sectors, collaboration partners will possess differing levels of expertise in the design, delivery, and assessment of products, programs, and services related to the issue to be addressed by the collaboration. By facilitating a process through which each partner can develop an understanding of other partners’ strengths and recognize the importance of their contributions, the collaboration increases the likelihood that partners will be willing to share decision-making authority. This process also decreases the risk that partners will perceive that others in the collaboration do not recognize the importance of their own contributions, a mindset that may lead partners to disinvest resources or withdraw entirely.
A collaboration will require different expertise at each stage. Examples might include surveying expertise required from a non-profit-sector partner during the diagnosis stage, legal expertise required from a business-sector partner during the design stage, or logistical expertise required from a government-sector partner during the implementation stage. By assessing and communicating the distinct collaboration stages during which each partner’s expertise will be needed, the collaboration allows partners to plan for the efficient use of their time and resources and helps partners avoid stretching resources between collaboration commitments and their own standard operating activities. If the collaboration fails to communicate its needs to partners, the risk that partners will be unable to fulfill their commitments to the collaboration increases.
The creation of a formal or informal organizational system for decision-making and project management
WHY IT MATTERS: Clear governance structures, such as committees, workgroups, or facilitated discussions, provide direction while nurturing equity and inclusivity to resolve actual or perceived power imbalances that can arise during collaboration.
Collaboration partners may be accustomed to differing governance structures that vary in formality, mechanisms for checks and balances, and hierarchy. Partners will have to reconcile their varying expectations to agree upon a structure that is well-suited to the collaboration’s aims, and in which all partners are likely to have confidence throughout the collaboration. In determining what governance structure is the best fit, the collaboration may wish to consider whether partners are familiar or comfortable with particular structures, as well as a number of other factors such as: number of partners (more partners may necessitate a more hierarchical structure); project time line (longer time lines may benefit from increased formality to mitigate the potential loss of partners over the course of the collaboration); whether the collaboration has multiple outputs (e.g. both programming- and policy-related initiatives, as this may call for a system of independent working groups); whether the collaboration has goals to “scale up” (which may require increased rigidity in structure to be easily replicated); and more.
Based on their organization- and sector-specific experiences, as well as the cultural context in which they have operated, partners may have differing understandings of “inclusivity.” Inclusivity is key to the collaborative process—It encourages investment in the collaboration by nurturing consistent, meaningful engagement, can lay the groundwork for resolution of perceived or actual power imbalances, and can ease partners’ acceptance of collaboration decisions that may not align with their interests. The collaboration can nurture equity and inclusivity through its governance structure in many ways, including providing for the equal allocation of speaking time during meetings, formalizing voting processes, and more. If partners perceive the governance structure to be exclusive, they may become frustrated, lose confidence in the collaboration, and disinvest.
Many people will be involved in the partnership in its different phases, taking on a range of roles as required. It is important to recognise the differences and to understand which roles are needed, at what stage and for what purpose. It is equally important to ensure that the best person is allocated to a particular role. Roles may change often during the life of a partnership and partners may ‘grow’ into new roles as they become more experienced in partnering.
The selection of an individual or organization that is responsible for coordinating tasks that allow the collaboration to progress
WHY IT MATTERS: Establishing a single person, a body of managers, or an organization as a single point of accountability can ensure structure and instill confidence in the collaborative process.
Collaboration partners may have differing expectations of managers and of project management practices. If partners are involved in determining criteria to select a manager, they will be more likely to work with the manager and have confidence in the manager’s capacity to coordinate the collaboration’s activities. Considerations for choosing a manager may include: whether the expertise and experience of the manager align with the collaboration’s needs; whether the manager has experience working with collaborations with similar outputs, goals, and types of partners; whether the manager’s cost is within the collaboration’s budget; and whether the manager is available during the timespan of the collaboration.
The development of an understanding among partners of how the differing expertise, resources, and networks of each partner enable the collaboration to achieve its aims
WHY IT MATTERS: Conveying the benefit of working with other sectors fosters continued participation in the collaboration and commitment to results.
Partners will possess differing expertise, resources, and networks related to the issue the collaboration aims to address. A business-sector partner, for example, may have access to proprietary information or financial resources not readily available to other partners; a non-profit partner may have singular policy- or community-related expertise; a government partner may have unique authority to exercise means to design or implement the initiative. By facilitating processes through which partners come to clearly understand how the resources of other partners directly influence the collaboration’s capacity to achieve its goals, the collaboration increases the likelihood that partners will value others’ contributions and remain committed to the collaboration. Without this understanding, partners may withdraw from the process when challenges arise, viewing the issue at hand as solvable without the involvement of other sectors.
The ability of collaboration partners to follow through on commitments that enhance the likelihood of collaborative success
WHY IT MATTERS: When partners fulfill their promises to the collaboration, they inspire trust among each other and among external stakeholders, building confidence in the collaboration and in the likelihood of a positive outcome.
Intersector collaborations often require partners to work in contexts that differ from their day-to-day operating environment, which can be a challenge. If partners are unable to fulfill commitments, however, progress may stall, and confidence and commitment may wane. The collaboration can hold partners accountable for their commitments by: identifying clear expectations from each partner and establishing time lines for these expectations, ensuring all partners understand and mutually agree to these expectations and time lines (perhaps through a partnership agreement or memorandum of understanding), and consistently communicating the fulfillment of commitments among partners.
The capacity to communicate progress, celebrate success, encourage when needed, and allow for flexibility as the collaboration progresses
WHY IT MATTERS: Communicating progress toward goals, as well as recognizing when to adapt to changing circumstances, new information, and shifting priorities, allows the collaboration to maintain engagement and momentum.
Collaborations often take longer than expected, in part because partners must work in ways that take into account the practices and priorities of other sectors. The collaboration can encourage patience among partners by communicating progress and celebrating success, which instills confidence and commitment. Partners can do this by beginning meetings with progress updates, by sending reports of progress to partners on a regular basis, by organizing an event to celebrate the achievement of a milestone, or by seeking external opportunities (e.g. via media outlets, external stakeholder meetings, etc.) to share interim achievements.
Maintaining a willingness to shift strategy is crucial in cross-sector collaboration, as collaborations must grapple with changing priorities of partners, funders, and other key stakeholders; wrestle with changing political environments; and more. The most effective collaborations are also open to new, unexpected information that gives them a more accurate picture of the issue they aim to address; and are periodically evaluating interim indicators to assess whether they are on track to accomplish their goals—both activities that may suggest the need for a strategy shift. If the collaboration is overly rigid in pursuing a previously agreed upon strategy, it may risk losing key partners, resources, or influence, or may ultimately pursue a project, program, or policy that new information suggests will not be effective. To create an environment in which partners and their stakeholders are flexible to changes in strategy, the collaboration should focus on clearly communicating how the change influences the collaboration’s ability to achieve its goals. If the collaboration has effectively communicated past progress and worked to inspire confidence in its practices, structure, and past choices, partners will be more likely to trust the need to shift course, rather than seeing such a shift as a failure of planning.
The engagement of a person, a group of persons, or an organization committed to leveraging their influence, resources, and skills to help the collaboration achieve its objectives
WHY IT MATTERS: Well-respected, influential individuals or organizations can provide access to resources, lend legitimacy and prestige, and attract public attention to a collaboration.
Sponsors and champions are distinct roles, each bringing unique benefits to a collaboration. Sponsors, while not usually involved in the day-to-day operations of the collaboration, provide prestige, access to networks, convening power, and can mobilize financial and non-financial resources to support the collaboration. The collaboration may enlist a sponsor to build perceptions of legitimacy and prestige, to develop relationships with constituencies or stakeholders that are key to the collaboration’s goals, or to gain access to additional financial and/or non-financial resources. Champions, who often are involved in the day-to-day operations of the collaboration, typically offer expertise on the issue targeted by the collaboration and/or processes that are critical to the collaboration’s effort. The collaboration may enlist a champion to provide needed expertise, increasing perceptions of credibility among partners and external stakeholders. If the collaboration does not involve sponsors or champions, it misses the opportunity to benefit from the unique influence, resources, and skills that these individuals and organizations provide, ultimately limiting its capacity.
The agreement among collaboration partners on the purpose of an evaluation
WHY IT MATTERS: Facilitating consensus among partners as to the purpose of the evaluation allows the collaboration to move forward with generating insights that are mutually agreed to be relevant to all partners, while acknowledging that partners may have differing goals for the evaluative process.
Influenced by sector- and organization-specific practices, norms, and interests, partners may have differing goals for the evaluation. Some partners may propose an evaluation that focuses on collaborative process so that others can replicate the collaboration’s efforts; others may propose evaluating outcomes to report success to their constituencies; others may propose evaluating both process and outcomes in order to adjust collaboration strategy (assuming the collaboration is ongoing rather than project-specific). Partners must reconcile these and other potential differing perspectives; a lack of clarity on the purpose of the evaluation creates confusion as to what information should be collected and how it should be assessed, ultimately limiting the collaboration’s ability to complete an evaluative process.
The documentation and communication of the collaboration’s outcomes and lessons learned, shared internally and externally
WHY IT MATTERS: Sharing results and insights into the collaboration’s process creates transparency, enables partners to communicate the value and legitimacy of intersector collaboration, and allows others to learn from, and potentially replicate, the initiative.
If the collaboration conducts a process-oriented evaluation, it may choose to tell the story of how collaboration design choices — its governance structure or method of sharing discretion, for example — were critical to its success. If the collaboration conducted an outcomes-oriented evaluation, the collaboration may choose to tell the story of its impact on a targeted population or issue, or of the indirect influence of the initiative on other, related factors (e.g. the impact of a transportation accessibility initiative on economic development). Given the increasing interest in intersector initiatives, it is important for the collaboration to decide how it will tell its story in a way that will be understood by those both internal to and outside of the collaboration. If its story is not accessible to a broad range of individuals in each sector, the potential value of the collaboration’s efforts may not be fully realized. When collaboration partners openly and accurately share their experiences among each other and with external parties, all can learn from the collaboration’s successes and challenges, which may influence interest in and effectiveness of future intersector efforts.
But even if there are many good reasons for creating partnerships to tackle major development issues, it is not always obvious to all that this is the best way forward. It is also not always easy to promote collaboration in particularly unsympathetic cultural, political or economic contexts. Obstacles to partnering can, therefore, take many forms:
GENERAL PUBLIC
NEGATIVE SECTORAL CHARACTERISTICS (ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED)
PERSONAL LIMITATIONS (OF INDIVIDUALS LEADING THE PARTNERSHIP)
ORGANISATIONAL LIMITATIONS (OF PARTNER ORGANISATIONS)
WIDER EXTERNAL CONSTRAINTS
The way in which partners use language can make or break a partnership. Each sector is riddled with its own ‘jargon’ that can be completely alienating to those who simply don’t understand it. At least, partners need to be sensitive to how they are using language – consciously and conscientiously speaking in language that is appropriate, clear and concise. A few words well selected and communicated is worth far more than a lot of words that are obscure and confusing. At best, well-chosen words can be used as tools to build consensus rather than allowing careless use of language to reinforce divisions. Some examples of useful distinctions in language can be drawn from partnership experience to date:
Distinctions are about how we understand and relate to the world. The ability to make distinctions is extremely important for effective partnering. It gives people greater freedom of thinking and acting, and leads to greater personal and professional success and satisfaction. A few more useful distinctions for individuals working in partnership are mentioned below:
The ability to distinguish between facts and the interpretation of those facts is extremely important for any life situation. It can be detrimental to any partnership if people’s action is based on their interpretation of events rather than on the evidence of the events themselves.
Break-downs can occur during any stage of the partnering process. Indeed, break-downs are natural by-products of any challenging process. In spite of this, break-downs can be de-motivating and are often seen as insurmountable hindrances. A break-down is not necessarily a bad thing but rather the interruption of a process which is trying to achieve something different. The challenge for partners is to see a break-down as an opportunity for a break-through.
Making requests is a feature of all partnering. Usually people don’t make enough requests, instead, they simply complain. But there is a big difference between the two. Complaints put people on the offensive. They are therefore disempowering and often lead to animosity rather than problem-solving. Requests, on the other hand, create a completely different situation. A request invites a response and action.
Partnerships are, at one level, networks of conversations. And the quality of the conversations between partners will largely determine the effectiveness of the partnership. In conversations partners create the future. They are jointly creating a vision of where they want to go. They discuss what they stand for, what each of them is accountable for, and create an understanding of how they can rely on each other. Conversations are one of the most powerful tools for building transparency and subsequently trust among partners. It is in conversation with each other that problems can be turned into opportunities and practical activity is generated.
This comprehensive approach to meetings (whether formal or informal) will engender a sense that everyone’s input is valued and their time constraints are respected. At their best, meetings will also be able to operate as a partnership-building tool – through the way in which responsibilities for managing the meeting, such as chairing / facilitating / record-keeping, are shared. Other ways of making meetings meaningful and lively include:
Explores in more detail the importance of creative conversation as a basis for good partnerships.
Keeping good records of meetings and of the partnership’s progress is an art – it is a bad idea to give the role of record-keeper to the least experienced or most junior person available. The great challenge is whether to record everything or simply the bare minimum.
Each partnership will have to decide what it requires but some basic considerations include:
Most of those involved in partnerships agree that the partnerships that endure are ones that are most open to learning from their own and other’s mistakes. Every partnership can be seen as a form of ‘action learning’ where the partners are learning by doing. To see all partnership activity as a form of research (in addition to being a delivery mechanism for achieving a task) is to give partners the opportunity for deepening and enhancing their knowledge, skills and professional practice. True collaboration transforms the individuals that engage in it consciously: partners help each other grow personally and professionally while accomplishing the objectives of the partnership. In addition, every partnership will have much to teach others who aspire to creating collaborative approaches to sustainable development in their own areas of work. Many partnerships – even those that seem to be well established – have benefited from being part of a ‘learning network’ where experiences, good and bad, are shared.
Some simple ‘base-line’ rules agreed between partners can be very helpful when the partnership is new and different partners feel the need to assert themselves and their ‘agendas’ at the expense of giving space to others. Some partners, from the business and public sector especially, may find it strange to set rules for behaviour whereas their civil society colleagues are likely to think this quite natural and acceptable (an early encounter with sectoral diversity!).
Ground rules might include:
Typically, in the early phases partners may need to remind each other about the agreed ground rules – it can take a while to break behaviour patterns! But over time the partnership will naturally adopt these new methods and the ground rules are simply there in the background as a gentle reminder. Newcomers to the partnership then quickly adapt to a modus operandi that they see working well. Ground rules can even be written into the Partnering Agreement.
REMEMBER
Partnerships work well when:
Once the partnership is established and a Partnering Agreement in place, the partners will turn their attention to the development of their proposed project / programme of work or joint activities. This is the partnership getting down to business and marks a significant transition from a focus on partnership building to project development and implementation. Some partners will be far more comfortable with this phase because they like to get on with practical tasks and may have found the earlier phases irksome. Others will be anxious that the partnership is not yet robust enough to move from talk to action. As with all projects, considerable attention will need to be paid to working out the details and a clear Action Plan is important to give a framework and milestones that all can agree on.
Many regions, cities and local communities are supporting a collaborative multi-stakeholder environment to support Circular Economy Initiatives in their region – all in the face of shrinking budgets.
They are seeking to become “Smart Circular Cities/Regions” But often lack the resources and in-house expertise to develop, deploy, and operate such initiatives. One way to meet these challenges is to harness the resources and strengths of private-sector stakeholders – innovators, businesses, anchor institutions, educators, and more. Private-sector partners can be an important source of funding, technical knowledge, continuing innovation, and workforce development.
This Toolkit is for government officials, urban planners, citizen groups, and others who want to implement successful circular city/region projects. Drawing from lessons learned, it provides a framework for getting the most out of public-private partnerships, including what to look for in a partner, assessing each partner’s contribution, and guidance on how to structure the most fruitful partnership agreements. The Appendices provide helpful checklists to use during the planning process. Our goal is to equip communities with the know-how to build long-lasting partnerships that contribute to vibrant and sustainable regions.
Partnerships drive successful Smart Circular City/Region initiatives because each partner contributes unique knowledge and expertise to the project. In addition, although local, regional, or national funding may be available to support circular regional projects, those funds rarely cover the entire cost. Partners can provide additional resources that help defray capital expenditures. Collaborating with multiple partners also increases operational efficiency, broadens technical expertise, and increases buy-in from the broader community. The types of benefits partners can provide include:
Certain communities, particularly those in rural areas, might benefit by connecting with a broader region to lower the deployment costs. Forming a partnership with a cost-sharing component can help defray these costs and might provide access to new solutions.
Private-sector partners might provide ideas or assets that could enhance revenue potential.
Partnerships with commercial entities can supplement public funding opportunities, provide workforce training, and offer technical assistance among other things. A partner might contribute specialized knowledge to enhance the project.
Partnerships with community institutions (research organisations, educational institutions) offer the opportunity to increase citizen engagement and participation and build greater support for the project.
Questions to ask during the planning stage when developing a partnership strategy:
Partnerships take many forms. Here are four of the most common models. Many projects combine elements of all four models:
In this partnership structure, private companies — e.g., equipment vendors, developers, technology firms — lead the project and provide the expertise and resources needed to implement a community’s circular city plan. The role of local governments, community anchor institutions, and economic development authorities is to provide the vision, strategic plan, facilities, framework, and metrics. They also assist with the project by, among other things, aggregating demand, engaging local residents, and making a long-term commitment to utilize the services provided by private-sector partners.
In this type of partnership, a government, city, or municipal utility — or some combination of those entities — owns the facilities and works with private partners to construct, operate, and maintain the infrastructure in exchange for financial or in-kind support. Oversight can be provided by an existing entity or a newly-created organization.
In this type of partnership, a government entity takes the lead and partners with other city agencies or non-profit organizations to provide community services.
Under this structure, private companies and the public entity jointly invest in the underlying infrastructure. All partners contribute a mix of financial, in-kind, and other support to build and operate the circular cities/region project.
Strategic partnerships enable local governments to join forces with partners that have common interests and can contribute valuable resources and expertise. When selecting partners, it will be important to:
Pick partners carefully: A prospective partner’s experience, credibility, management and operational capability, financial standing, and ability to carry out the work on the scale required by the project should be evaluated carefully. Communities will need to investigate and assess a prospective partner’s skills, experience, and cultural fit with local government and other organizations involved in the project.
Offer champions: A key role in partnership development: Advocates from community anchor institutions, universities, non-profits, and local government agencies can encourage interest in smart circular cities, build demand for consumer participation in specific initiatives, and provide access to valuable partners. Advocates involved in the project planning or development process will be more invested if their input is included in the objectives and terms of the partnership agreement.
Engage a comprehensive set of partners: A broad set of commercial, government, and community partners provides advantages in executing ambitious projects and ensuring long-term sustainability.
Partnerships must offer value to all parties to be successful. Selecting the right partner or partners will accelerate near-term results and increase the likelihood that the project will grow, expand, and be sustainable over the long term. During the selection process, consider whether a particular partner can help increase:
Awareness: A prospective partner’s marketing expertise might be able to improve credibility and awareness of the service a community is offering or implementing.
Market reach: Leveraging a partner’s customers, geographic service area, or knowledge base might facilitate the delivery of services to places or people that a community is trying to reach.
Expertise: Gaining access to a partner’s physical assets, expertise, cost-saving technologies, etc, can play a critical role in reducing expenses and accelerating the deployment of new services.
Funding or in-kind contributions: Financial support from a partner and its suppliers, or in-kind contributions in the form of research, training programs, and other assistance, will help increase a project’s long-term sustainability.
Operational efficiency: Combining efforts with a resourceful partner can improve the project’s effectiveness and value to the community.
Quality: Joining forces with a trustworthy and experienced partner that can be used as a sounding board will improve the overall quality and worth of the project
The following chart lists examples of partners and the resources and expertise they offer:
|
Categories |
Examples |
Partner Role |
|
Institutional Partners |
||
|
Educational institutions and networks |
|
|
|
Libraries |
|
|
|
Other |
|
|
|
Government & Community Partners |
||
|
Economic development organizations |
|
|
|
Community non-profits and anchor institutions |
|
|
|
Governments |
|
|
|
Foundations |
|
|
|
Private Sector Partners |
||
|
Private sector partners |
|
|
The Procurement policies may govern the partner selection process. If funding sources are from grants or loans, local governments should check applicable laws or requirements for guidance about selecting and implementing partnerships. Partnership selection might begin through collaboration on a new projects, where each potential partner provides the following characteristics from its own perspective: capabilities, experience, relationships, expertise, and resources. Project leaders must determine whether the partner has:
Even if public procurement processes are not used, project leaders should still consider the same selection factors.
An effective partnership spreads the risks and costs related to capital investment, operations, and long-term sustainability among partners.
During the planning stage, a useful technique is to draw a graphic illustration of how the funding, resources, services, and assets will flow among the various organizations involved in the project. At a minimum, this mapping exercise should depict the timeline and flows of:
Funding: How much will each partner contribute and what will they receive for participating in the project?
Inventory of Assets: What assets will each partner contribute and/or own?
Assessment of Other Resources: What resources (e.g., facilities, labor, data analysis) will partners provide?
Knowing the timing and scope of each partner’s financial contribution is critical. As funding contributions are mapped out, project leaders need a full understanding of:
To be successful, partners must reach consensus on the range of details concerning contribution of assets.
Partners often contribute services. Key points for discussion among potential partners include:
Mapping these contribution flows within the partnership framework will assist the parties in answering key questions about their relationships and agreeing upon commitments before the project begins.
How partner services and resources will be integrated with services provided by local governments and other organizations. Agreements associated with the resources provided and the timing and duration.
Partnership agreements should reflect local/regional needs and circumstances. The type of project and partnership model will determine the right blend of experience, qualifications, knowledge, resources, and vision needed for the partnership to be successful. Appendix A includes a helpful checklist to use as a tool for assessing each partner’s contribution.
Partnerships with a high degree of interdependency, or where funds are exchanged, require more formal partnership agreements, such as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or a contract. If parties are not transferring funds or assets or the partner’s deliverables are not central to the project’s goals, then a more informal agreement might suffice. Nevertheless, a clear understanding of roles and responsibilities will be important and should be agreed to in writing. The framework for partnerships includes:
Contracts, MOUs, and other agreements increase the probability of a successful partnership, because all parties understand what is expected. The goal of all partnerships should be to execute a fair deal, known as a “win-win.” When incentives are aligned, conflict is much less likely to arise.
In formal partnerships, the responsibilities are recorded within contracts, grant agreements, or other legally binding documents. Formal partnership agreements are necessary when:
Even with these informal partnerships, the project’s partnership policy or plan should still specify how the lead organization will maintain these affiliations and any dispute resolution procedures.
In order to achieve successful partnership outcomes, local governments should develop a formal framework that entails:
Statutory, Legislative, and Regulatory Context: The national and local statutory requirements for entering into partnerships should be reviewed to ensure compliance. Official action or new legislation might be required. Some regions and localities restrict the types of projects that governments can undertake and/or operate. Government sovereignty and indemnification rules and requirements need to be clarified prior to entering into an agreement.
Policy Approach: Reviewing local policies on partnerships will determine if a smart circular cities/regions policy framework should be developed by the local government – that is, how smart circular cities/regions applications will be integrated into goals and long-term plans. If a local government has experience with partnerships in an area other than smart circular cities/regions projects, it is useful to understand any problems that arose and how to build upon what was learned.
Procurement: The procurement rules and regulations that apply to contracts, MOUs, or other instruments used for the partnership should be assessed. As partners are identified and selected, it is crucial to comply with these regulations (e.g., “best value” or “sole source”). A thorough understanding of the required procurement procedures will help evaluate what each potential partner brings to the table during the partner selection process.
Operations and Financing: The existing management structure of the local government will define any operational or financing role a government partner undertakes. This ensures that management is aware of the resources, staff, and financing required and works with local governmental bodies to address project needs on a timely basis.
Partnership Agreements: Agreements take many forms, such as contracts, MOUs, and service-level agreements. The agreement should detail the assets, resources, and funding flows for the partnership, reporting requirements, and standard contract terms (e.g., termination, dispute resolution, principal contacts). All financial obligations or critical paths to the project’s success should be documented in the agreement.
Monitoring and Oversight: The type and purpose of each partnership will determine the level of monitoring and oversight required; however, most partnerships benefit from establishing a process to report and monitor partner progress and provide oversight.
Evaluation: Incorporating project evaluation as part of the partnership plan or agreement greatly enhances partners’ project buy-in and ensures that everyone is aware of the project’s outcomes.
Although trust, mutual benefit, and mission alignment are core components of any partnership, clarity on roles, responsibilities, timelines, and deliverables is critical to the long-term success of these relationships. The best partnerships are purposeful relationships built upon well-defined processes, open communications, and flexibility. Regular meetings, status reports, and progress reports are important tools to ensure partners are on track to meet commitments. Many projects dedicate a full-time or part-time project manager to track partner obligations, identify issues, and maintain strong communication with partners and vendors. Partners might miss deliverables or commitments, but maintaining regular and frequent communications allows all partners to be responsive to issues before problems occur. Useful communication methods include regular calls, in-person meetings, and written reports on key activities, annual reports, assessments, and audits. The following best practices will help ensure successful long-term partnerships:
Designate a lead: Identify a representative for each partner to participate regularly in group calls or meetings. To avoid misunderstandings, a single person should feel ownership and be held accountable. Using digital tools (such as Loomio) can promote transparency and enable democratic decision making across a remote team and multiple working groups/sub-groups
Establish measures to facilitate coordination early in the process: Start with a strong understanding of roles and responsibilities. A large number of partners make coordinating the project, resolving conflicts, and governing the operations more complex. A robust governance model will facilitate decision-making and conflict resolution, and foster inclusiveness, transparency, and accountability.
Communicate regularly and convey important information and decisions in writing: Relationships among all the partners should be transparent. The value and relevancy of the partnership should be communicated openly to build support for the project and mitigate potential misconceptions. Communicate regularly through conference calls and at meetings. Memorialize decisions in writing and distribute to all partners so they remain well-informed.
Actively manage partnership agreements to reflect changes as they occur: Monitor progress on milestones and deliverables on a regular basis. No matter how clearly defined roles and deliverables are at the start of the project, expect change. Partnership agreements need clauses that include procedures for managing change and dispute resolution.
Listen and build trust: Relationships grow as partners develop trust.
New circular solutions will transform today’s communities into tomorrow’s sustainable and vibrant societies. This toolkit provides helpful guidance for local officials considering public-private partnerships as a cost-effective way to accelerate Smart Circular City/Region initiatives. As outlined above, careful planning, aligned incentives, clear deliverables, and regular communication are all key components to long-term success.
Circular Oslo – open sourced partnership methodology V.1.0 a derivative of see source attribution
developing tools for supporting multi-stakeholder, cross sectoral collaboration for Smart Circular Regions.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
