ASSESSING STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP

THE PARTNERSHIP ASSESSMENT TOOL

1. INTRODUCTION

Working with others in partnership to deliver both individualand jointly agreed outcomes is now a core requirement indelivering effective programs. Whilst partners may spendsignificant amounts of time developing their business plans,agreeing and reviewing objectives, they often spend little orno time assessing the effectiveness of the partnership processthey have entered into to deliver those objectives.

Partnership working is frequently both complex, time-consumingand difficult. Sometimes the difficulties will reflect littlemore than the 'discomfort' inherent in most partnerships and,once identified, can readily be ameliorated, solved or simplyaccepted and managed. Occasionally the difficulties - whichmay be associated with only one partner - will be so serious asto disable the partnership and require its re-constitution.Whatever the perceived strengths or weaknesses of partnershipworking, it makes sense to ensure that the resources that havebeen committed to it are being used effectively.

The purpose of this tool is to provide a simple, quick andcost-effective way of assessing the effectiveness ofpartnership working. It enables a rapid appraisal (a quick'health check') which graphically identifies problem areas.This allows partners to focus remedial action and resourcescommensurate with the seriousness and urgency of the problems.Using the Tool thus avoids exhaustive, lengthy and costlyinvestigations of partnership working in general. And forthose just setting up partnerships the Tool provides achecklist of what to ensure and what to avoid.

It has been designed explicitly as a developmental tool ratherthan as a means for centrally assessing local partnershipperformance.

2. HOW CAN THE ASSESSMENT TOOL HELP YOU?

It does provide material to conduct an assessment of thecurrent effectiveness of partnership working.

1

It does, with repeated use, allow you to chart changes inpartnership working over time.It does, when used at different organisational levels,highlight a range, and possible diversity, of perspectives.It will not on its own tell you how all the problems associatedwith partnership working should be addressed. It does, however, provide a common framework (and vocabulary)for partners to develop a jointly owned approach to tacklingsome of the barriers to effective partnership working.

The tool provides a practical way of:

Helping newly formed partnerships to explore the views oraspirations of those embarking on a new venture. It providesa developmental framework for establishing a healthy andeffective partnership by, amongst other things,highlighting what to avoid.

Helping established partnerships take stock on a routinebasis of how effective their process of partnership Workingis: i.e. it provides an opportunity for routine audit or'health check'.

Helping partnerships which are experiencing difficulties toidentify systematically areas of conflict (and consensus)and to move towards a remedial action plan.

The tool can be used to assess partnership working at differentlevels; e.g. with those at the highest level (elected member orboard level), at senior/middle management level and amongstfront-line staff (those who need to make the partnership workin practice).

Repeating the exercise at different levels within thepartnership provides the opportunity to compare and contrastviews and to target remedial action where it is most needed.Also, repeating the exercise over time allows partnerships tochart their progress in addressing problems and achieving theirgoals.

The principles upon which the Tool is based are generic: it is,therefore, applicable in a wide range of contexts, not onlybetween authorities but within them.

3. WHAT IS THE ASSESSMENT TOOL?

2

The tool was developed for the British Government by the LeedsInstitute for Health Sciences 1. It draws heavily upon anextensive programme of research carried out by the Instituteand also upon work undertaken with the former NHS Executive -(Trent Region) which resulted in the production of aPartnership Assessment Tool (PAT)2. This has been usedsuccessfully in the field of health and social carepartnerships. This current assessment tool has been revisedand adapted in the context of Strategic Partnering arrangementsfor public/public, public/private, public/voluntary andpublic/private/voluntary partnerships.

The Assessment Tool is based on six Partnership Principleswhich our research and fieldwork has shown form the buildingblocks for successful partnership. The purpose of the tool isto ascertain from partners how far they feel that thesebuilding blocks are in place. The assessment exercise is basedon individual partners identifying and sharing their views ofthe partnership. It therefore highlights areas of conflict andconsensus to be explored, but it also allows partners tocomment on the meaning and relative importance of theirresponses.

The advantage of this tool are many results can be produced graphically with accompanying

text offers a common language for partners to discuss both the

opportunities for developing more effective working andthe perceived barriers

was designed for Health Program is working well with established Partnerships and more

loose collaborative efforts. The tools has been slightly changed to adapt to PAHO needs.

4. USING THE TOOL

1 Strategic Partnering Taskforce at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of UK commissioned the Nuffield Center for Development and Health of LeedsInstitute for Health Sciences to develop this Assessment Tool.2 Hudson, B., Hardy. B., Henwood, M. and Wistow G. (1999) In Pursuit of Inter-Agency Collaboration in The Public Sector: What is the contribution of theory and research? Public Management 1(2) 235-260 Hardy, B., Hudson, B. and Waddington E. (2000) What makes a Good Partnership? A Partnership Assessment Tool. Leeds: Nuffield Institute for Health.

3

1st Stage

It is important at the start of the process that partners areclearly explained the reasons for using the tool.

2nd Stage

Experience suggests that independent, although not necessarilyexternal, facilitation is helpful in managing the process andencouraging openness in partners. Similarly, it has proveduseful to bring partners together to. Partners can read thematerial and carry out the exercise individually if they preferor if it is difficult to bring partners together. In completingthe assessment exercise each partner will complete the sixrapid assessment profile sheets, indicating their responses toa set of statements grouped under each of the six partnershipprinciples. It is important that these responses bear in mindwhat lies behind the statements. An explanation of each of thelatter is set out on the facing page for each principle.

3rd Stage

The next step in the process is the analysis of these responses(see ‘scoring system’) and the generation of a profile.

Stage 1 :Preparation

Decide how the exercisewill be facilitated

Decide how it will beactioned.

Stage 2 : Undertakingthe Assessment

familiarise partners withmaterial

get partners to completerapid partnershipappraisal sheets

4

Stage 3 : Analysis andFeedback

Analyse individualresponses

Arrange feedback meetingto:

share, discuss and interpret findings

Stage 4: Action Planning for Alternative Findings

a. b. c.

Assessment suggestspartnership working well.Partners need to considerhow often to build in aregular review.

Assessment suggestspartnership is working well insome parts but there areconcern about others.Partners need to decide how toaddress these areas of concern

Assessment highlightssignificant areas of concernwhich require urgentattention and a detailedplan of action.

5

STAGE 1: PREPARATION

For this Tool to work properly there needs to be clear agreementamongst the partners about the purpose of using the Tool to assesspartnership working. It may be intended to explore and exposeproblems or to confirm apparent success. It may be a prospectiveexercise undertaken by partners just embarking on partnership or aretrospective exercise by partners renewing or revising partnershiparrangements.

Whatever the purpose, it is important that all partners have thechance to discuss the reasons for using the tool and what isexpected/hoped/intended to achieve, and what will be done followinganalysis of the findings in terms of feedback and action planning.

As well as discussing and agreeing purposes, it is an important partof the preparation to agree individual partners' contributions tothe assessment process - whether setting-up and hosting,facilitating, analysing findings or action planning.

Facilitation of the process is important at two stages inparticular: in introducing partners to the wider partnership context and the

assessment process; and in helping them become familiar with theTool.

in analysis of findings across the partners, examination ofissues arising and action planning.

Often this facilitation will be conducted internally. Sometimes,and especially where it is expected to be difficult or sensitive, itmay be better conducted externally. Another important preliminarystep is to be clear about - and to communicate - what will concludethe process in terms of feedback and action planning. Thoseparticipating need to be assured not only that taking the trouble toundertake the assessment is worthwhile but that they can be, andshould be, frank and honest in their responses.

Finally, it is a vital part of the preparation that those involvedare well acquainted with the wider policy and organisational contextwithin which their partnership operates.

6

STAGE 2: UNDERTAKING THE PARTNERSHIP ASSESSMENT

In the following pages individuals are asked to consider a series ofstatements about the Partnership - as a whole - which is the subjectof this assessment. Indicate the extent to which you agree ordisagree with each of these statements by ticking the appropriateboxes.

The left-hand pages give brief explanations of what lies behind eachof the Partnership Principles and Elements and the relatedstatements.

After you have addressed the statements for each of the sixPrinciples, score your responses as follows:

Strongly agree : 4Agree : 3Disagree : 2Strongly disagree: 1

You may wish to add additional comments or observations in the finalcolumn.

The following is an illustration of this scoring, using as anexample possible responses to Principle 1.

7

RAPID PARTNERSHIP PROFILE

To what extent do you agree with each of the following six statements in respect of the Partnership which is the subject of this assessment exercise as a whole?

There have been substantial pastachievements within the partnership.

The factors associated with successful working are known andunderstood.

The principal barriers to successful partnership working are known and understood.

The extent to which partners engage in partnership working voluntarily or under pressure/mandation is recognisedand understood.

There is a clear understanding of partners’ interdependence in achieving some of their goals.

There is mutual understanding ofthose areas of activity where partners can achieve some goals by working independently of eachother.

Scores 4 9 2 1 Total: 16:

8

9

PRINCIPLE 1 - RECOGNISE AND ACCEPT THE NEED FOR PARTNERSHIP.

This principle is concerned with two main factors: the extent to which there is a partnership historyand the extent to which there is a recognition of the need to work in partnership. These factors areobviously related in that a strong local history of partnership working should reflect anunderstanding of the need to work in this manner, whilst a weak history of partnership working mayreflect an insufficient appreciation of the extent to which agencies depend upon one another toachieve organisational goals. Without such an appreciation, genuine partnership working will bevery unlikely to develop.

Element A: Identify principal partnership achievements.

The extent to which local agencies have aprior record of successful partnership workingis crucial in determining the scale and paceof their future achievements – in short,‘success breeds success’. This does not meanthat areas with a limited history of workingtogether cannot reach the levels attained bymore mature partnership networks, but to beginto do so there needs to be a mutual awarenessof what has been achieved jointly. Thoseareas with more substantial joint achievementswill also need to be confident that these havebeen of demonstrable benefit and worthy offurther development. What you would thereforebe considering here is a clear and agreedaccount of what has already been achievedthrough partnership working. This may coverboth formal arrangements, probably at astrategic level, or less formal arrangements,often at operational level.

Element B: Identify the factors associatedwith successful partnership working.

Much of this assessment tool is asking you toidentify in detail the factors associated withpartnership working. Here we want you toreflect upon the reasons why the principalpartnership achievements which you have justidentified have been possible. In part youmay wish to identify factors external to thelocality, such as the requirements of centralgovernment or regional bodies. However, it isalso likely that you will identify somespecific local conditions or individuals. Youmay be returning to examine the importance ofsome of these factors later but here youshould consider whether what you regard as themost significant general factors associated with

your previous partnership achievements areknown and understood.

Element C: Identify the principal barriers topartnership working.

Partnership working is rarely straightforward.Sometimes the barriers to working effectivelytogether turn out to be too formidable, andeven where some measure of success is achieved,some barriers to partnership are moredifficult to overcome than others. To moveforward in a more sustainable relationship itis important to be clear about the nature andextent of any such barriers so that stepsmight be taken to minimise their influence.As with the principal factors associated withsuccess, these barriers might be both externalto the locality or internal to it. Severaltypes of barrier can be distinguished:structural, procedural, financial,professional, cultural and matters of statusand legitimacy. Other parts of the frameworkwill return to some of these in more depth,but for now you should simply consider whetherthe main types of barrier are known andunderstood.

Element D: Acknowledge whether the policycontext creates voluntary, coerced ormandatory partnership working.

It is important that partners understand thepolicy context within which partnershipworking is taking place or proposed. Thereneeds to be a clear recognition of thepressure upon individual partners. Inparticular, partners must acknowledge thatwhereas some will enter the partnershipentirely voluntarily others may be coerced oreven required to do so. It is vital to thesuccess of partnership working that suchdegrees of pressure – whether local or

10

national - are mutually recognised andunderstood.

Element E: Acknowledge the extent of partners’interdependence to achieve some of theirgoals.

Potential partners need to have anappreciation of their interdependence, withoutwhich collaborative problem-solving makes nosense. If there is objectively no suchinterdependence then there is no need to worktogether. If there is some interdependence,but this is insufficiently acknowledged orinadequately understood, then furtherunderstanding needs to be acquired before anyfurther partnership development can takeplace.

Element F: Acknowledge areas in which you arenot dependent upon others to achieve yourgoals.

Not all of an organisation’s activitiesrequire a contribution from a partner in orderto be undertaken effectively. Organisationswill normally have some ‘core business’ whichthey would expect to undertake with little orno reference to other partners. They wouldalso expect others to acknowledge theirlegitimacy to operate in a certain field ofactivity and to define appropriate practicewithin this field. Without such anunderstanding there is a danger of partnersoverstepping the limits of agreed areas ofpartnership working.

11

PRINCIPLE 1Recognise and Accept the Need for Partnership

Elements of the principle

A. Identify principal partnership achievements.B. Identify the factors associated with successful partnership working.C. Identify the principal barriers to partnership working.D. Acknowledge whether the policy context creates voluntary, coerced or mandatory

partnership workingE. Acknowledge the extent of partners’ interdependence to achieve some of their

goals.F. Acknowledge areas in which you are not dependent upon others to achieve your

goals.

Rapid Partnership Profile

To what extent do you agree with each of the following six statements in respect of the Partnership which is the subject of this assessment exercise as a whole?

There have been substantial pastachievements within the partnership.

The factors associated with successful working are known andunderstood.

The principal barriers to successful partnership working are known and understood.

The extent to which partners engage in partnership working voluntarily or under pressure/mandation is recognisedand understood.

There is a clear understanding of partners’ interdependence in achieving some of their goals.

11

There is mutual understanding ofthose areas of activity where partners can achieve some goals by working independently of eachother.

Scores Total:

12

PRINCIPLE 2 – DEVELOP CLARITY AND REALISM OF PURPOSE.This stage of the assessment assumes that there is a consensus amongst partners on the desirabilityand importance of joint working. This second principle is concerned with two broad initial areasof ‘scoping’. First considering whether the partners have sufficient common ground to worktogether, both in terms of a broad set of shared understandings as well as more specific aims andobjectives. Second, ensuring that the aims and objectives of the partnership are realistic.

Element A: Ensure that the partnership isbuilt on shared vision, shared values andagreed service principles.

Most approaches to partnership working take itfor granted that an explicit statement ofshared vision based upon jointly held valuesis a prerequisite to success. There may besome scope for deciding whether theseconditions need to be in place at the outsetof a partnership, or if they can be developedand refined as work proceeds. It has beennormal practice for several years to identifythe values and principles upon which servicedevelopments are based. Even though these areoften couched at a very general level, theygive some initial indication of the extent towhich separate agencies have sufficient incommon to sustain a long-term relationship.Values and principles may not need to be tooexplicit – they can express direction withoutnecessarily declaring the intent to follow it.Indeed, it may be that for a starting point, abroad vision may be more likely to generatemovement than a detailed blueprint. Wherethere are clear differences of perspective,these will need to be resolved if furtherpartnership development is to flourish.

Element B: Define clear joint aims andobjectives.

Once there is sufficient consensus over valuesand principles, parties need to define morespecific aims and objectives. Although someambiguity may initially help to generatecommitment where clarity may be toothreatening, these aims need to be clearenough for all of the partners to be confidentof their meaning – goals which lack suchclarity will diminish enthusiasm andcommitment. Working together on this taskshould serve several purposes: provide a focusaround which agencies can cohere; help toclarify boundaries and commitments; define

more clearly the scale and scope of jointwork; and provide a framework for theregulation of joint arrangements.

Element C: Ensure joint aims and objectivesare realistic.

Aims and objectives which are notrealistically capable of attainment will soondiminish enthusiasm for partnership. Thenotion of collaborative capacity is relevanthere, and refers to the level and degree ofactivity a partnership arrangement is able tosustain without any partner losing commitment.This is related not only to the tangibleresources (such as funding) which are centralto collaboration, but also to such lesstangible resources as status or autonomy.Demands can both exceed and fall short ofthresholds of capacity. An underestimate canmean that a committed collaborative effort isconfined to marginal tasks, while anoverestimate can lead to unrealisticexpectations of what can be achieved andwithin what timescale.

Element D: Ensure that the partnership hasdefined clear service outcomes.

In service delivery partnerships, aims andobjectives traditionally have been expressedin terms of service inputs or outputs. It isimportant that such aims and objectives arealso expressed as outcomes for servicerecipients. There needs to be a clearindication of how it is intended thatpartnership working will lead to theseimproved outcomes.

Element E: Partners’ reasons for engaging inthe partnership are understood and accepted.

It is vital to the success of partnershipworking that, amongst the partners, there isan understanding and acceptance of why eachpartner is engaged in the partnership. This

may be blunt self-interest or narroworganisational pressure. It may, on the otherhand, be an acknowledgement of a sharedinterest and collective purpose. Whatever thereason, partnership working can flounder ifbased on partner motivations and purposes thatare misunderstood.

Element F: Focus partnership effort on areasof likely success.

Partnership is likely to be particularlyfragile in the early stages, if only becauseit may imply a threat to existing boundariesand practices. It may therefore be necessaryfor partnership ventures to be alert tothreats to their progress, and to acknowledgethat change will not be accomplished quicklyor simply. In the face of this long-termtask, it is useful to look for ‘quick wins’and ‘small wins’. However, it is alsoimportant to relate any such ‘small wins’ to‘big wins’. A big win is a major gain thatmay reflect the scale of the task or the scopeof planning activity but may also be oneaccomplished in the face of substantialopposition. A small win, on the other hand,rarely involves substantial risk, but can beinformed by a sense of strategic directionwhich can add up to a big win over timethrough a series of ‘small wins’. This is thenotion of ‘think big and act small’.

PRINCIPLE 2Develop Clarity and Realism of Purpose

Elements of the principle

A. Ensure that the partnership is built on shared vision, shared

values and agreed service principles.

B. Define clear joint aims and objectives.

C. Ensure joint aims and objectives are realistic.

D. Ensure that the partnership has defined clear service outcomes.

E. Partners' reasons for engaging in the partnership are understood

and accepted.

F. Focus partnership effort on areas of likely success.

Rapid Partnership Profile

To what extent do you agree with each of the following sixstatements in respect of the Partnership which is the subject of this assessment exercise as a whole? Our partnership has a clear

vision, shared values and agreedservice principles.

We have clearly defined joint aims and objectives.

These joint aims and objectives are realistic.

The partnership has defined clear service outcomes.

The reason why each partner is engaged in the partnership is understood and accepted.

We have identified where early partnership success is most likely.

Scores Total:

PRINCIPLE 3 – ENSURE COMMITMENT AND OWNERSHIPPartnership working cannot be guaranteed to be characterised by either spontaneous growth or self-perpetuation, therefore the understandings and agreements developed through the first twoprinciples will need to be supported and reinforced. This Principle is concerned with the ways inwhich this can be done. It is concerned with ensuring that across the partners there is awidespread commitment to, and ownership of, partnership working; and, especially, a sufficientlysenior commitment.

Element A: Ensure appropriate seniority ofcommitment.

Organisational commitment to partnershipworking is more likely to be sustained wherethere is individual commitment to the venturefrom the most senior levels of the respectiveorganisations. Without this, it is possiblethat the efforts of partnership enthusiastsholding middle and lower level positions willbecome marginalised and perceived as unrelatedto the ‘real’ core business of each separateagency. Ideally, this senior inter-agencycommitment will reflect, or develop into,personal connections between key decision-makers, therefore helping to cement a cultureof trust.

Element B: Secure widespread ownership withinand outside partner organisations.

The above emphasis on the need for seniorityof commitment does not imply that widerownership is any less significant. A welldeveloped strategy on partnership will countfor little unless links are made between macroand micro levels of activity. In particular,operational staff often possess the capacityto ‘make or break’ shared arrangements in thatthey have considerable contact with outsidebodies and often enjoy discretionary powersand considerable day-to-day autonomy fromtheir managers. Inter-professional workimplies a willingness to share, and even giveup, exclusive claims to specialised knowledgeand authority, and integrate procedures.

Element C: Ensure sufficient consistency ofcommitment.

Commitment, at whatever level in theorganisation, needs to be consistent. This ispart of the process of building up sustainablerelationships which will have an enduringpresence. Where there is an inconsistentattitude towards partnership working such as

taking unilateral action to change, orwithdraw from, joint agreements, the [short-term and longer-term] consequences could beconsiderable. In the short term the specificpartnership venture will clearly be at risk,but more significantly there will be a longer-term view that partnership working must be ofmarginal concern if it appears to attract onlylimited or sporadic commitment.

Element D: Recognise and encourageindividuals with networking skills.

There is widespread evidence of the importanceto collaborative working of individuals whoare skilled at mapping and developinginterpersonal policy networks across agencies.The characteristics which best underpin theskills and legitimacy of such ‘networkers’include both technical or competency-basedfactors, as well as social and inter-personalskills. Apart from an essential aptitude forworking across organisational, professionaland service boundaries, such characteristicsinclude: a perception by others as havingsufficient legitimacy to assume the role;being perceived as unbiased and able to managemultiple points of view; a sense of thecritical issues and first steps which need tobe taken; and political skills which encourageothers to take risks.

14

Element E: Ensure that partnership working isnot dependent for success solely upon theseindividuals.

Problems can arise if partnership workingbecomes too reliant on the networking skillsof such individuals. These problems becomemost apparent when these individuals leave.Accordingly, it is important that ways arefound not only to sustain the partnership-widerelationships developed by these individualsbut to develop their cross-boundary working sothat it becomes increasingly establishedorganisational behaviour.

Element F: Reward partnership working anddiscourage and deal with those not working inpartnership.

Not all organisations willingly engage inpartnership working on a voluntary basis – ithas few or no qualities of spontaneous growth.In such situations it may be necessary todevise ways of encouraging reluctant agenciesinto a partnership, either through the use ofsanctions or rewards. Both organisations andindividuals need to see that there areincentives for partnership working anddisincentives for not working collaboratively.

15

PRINCIPLE 3Ensure Commitment and Ownership

Elements of the principle

A. Ensure appropriate seniority of commitment.

B. Secure widespread ownership within and outside partner

organisations.

C. Ensure sufficient consistency of commitment.

D. Recognise and encourage individuals with networking skills.

E. Ensure that partnership working is not dependent for success

solely upon these individuals.

F. Reward partnership working and discourage and deal with those not

working in partnership.

Rapid Partnership Profile

To what extent do you agree with each of the following sixstatements in respect of the Partnership which is the subject of this assessment exercise as a whole? There is a clear commitment to

partnership working from the most senior levels of each partnership organisation.

There is widespread ownership ofthe partnership across and within all partners.

Commitment to partnership working is sufficiently robust to withstand most threats to itsworking.

The partnership recognises and encourages networking skills.

The partnership is not dependentfor its success solely upon these individuals.

Not working in partnership is discouraged and dealt with.

Scores Total:

PRINCIPLE 4 – DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN TRUSTThis is simultaneously the most self-evident and most elusive of the principles which underpinsuccessful partnership working. Although joint working is possible with little trust amongst thoseinvolved, the development and maintenance of trust is the basis for the closest, most enduring andmost successful partnerships. At whatever level – organisational, professional, individual – themore trust there is the better will be the chances for healthy partnership. Needless to say, thehistory of joint working in many areas is characterised by territorial disputes about roles andremits or claims to exclusive professional competence or defensiveness about resources whichpreclude the development of trust. What each of these six elements spell out is the need todevelop an openness in the pursuit of broad, collective interests which foster mutual trust. Trustis, of course, hard won and easily lost.

Element A: Ensure each partner's contributionis equally recognised and valued.

The evidence is that partnerships work bestwhere each partner’s contribution isrecognised and valued in the way thepartnership is structured, irrespective ofsome having more of some resources thanothers. The resources which each brings aredifferent and not always readily quantifiable.Voluntary organisations, for example, maybring information (about service need orsuccessful service provision), experience andexpertise, or legitimacy, by representingparticular groups. Ensuring equal treatmentmeans ensuring, for example, that in itsgovernance arrangements the partnership avoidshaving ‘senior’ and ‘junior’ partners or ‘coregroups’. If excluded partners feelmarginalised from the partnership’s corebusiness, suspicion, erosion of trust andlessening of commitment will result.

Element B: Ensure fairness in the conduct ofthe partnership.

Fairness in the way partnership work isconducted means creating the opportunity foreach party to contribute as much as they wishand in a manner which is appropriate. Itmeans avoiding one or two partners alwayssetting the agenda or defining the languagefor partnership working; or hosting andchairing meetings at times and places of theirconvenience; or dictating agendas, priorities,timescale etc. Clearly some of this isinevitable where individual partners haveparticular legal responsibilities or apreponderance of particular resources.However, this should not preclude fairness toall partners irrespective of size.

Element C: Ensure fairness in distribution ofpartnership benefits.

Although each partner to the partnership‘signs up’ to collective aims and objectivesthey may also aim to secure some benefits oftheir own. The latter should be transparent(see Principle 2 above), as should thebenefits that accrue to individual partnersfrom their collective efforts. Fairness meanssome sharing of such benefits: those accruingto one partner should neither bedisproportionate nor unduly at the expense ofanother. However, partnerships cannot beuniformly about ‘win-win’ solutions for all.On the contrary, the health of any partnershipcan be measured in terms of the ‘sacrifice’which one partner is prepared to make for thecollective good, i.e. the willingness tosubsume self-interest to general interest.The mutual acknowledgement and acceptance ofsuch ‘altruism’ helps to build trust andcement partnership.

Element D: Ensure the partnership is able tosustain a sufficient level of trust to surviveexternal problems which create mistrustelsewhere.

However enthusiastic and committed thepartners there will be occasions when thecommitment is threatened by problems ‘outside’the partnership, i.e. not directly associatedwith the business of the partnership, butnevertheless affect individual partner'scontribution to it - maybe they cannot investthe same amount of staff time. Simple rulesagain apply, i.e. openness and honesty: ‘Weare still as committed as ever to the goals,aims and objectives of the partnership but wewill have, temporarily, to re-direct/re-investour time, effort and resources to dealing withour current “local” difficulty.'

16

Element E: Trust built up within partnershipsneeds to be high enough to encouragesignificant risk-taking.

One of the truest measures of successfulpartnership working is that there issufficient trust amongst the partners for them– and for the partnership as a whole – to takesignificant risks in pursuit of shared aimsand objectives. Such risks most visibly wouldbe in political or financial terms – with onepartner, for example, being willing to risksome immediate individual ‘loss’ for the sakeof some longer-term collective gain – but alsoin particular service developments.

Element F: Ensure that the right people are inthe right place at the right time.

Although an apparent platitude, this is one ofthe consistent messages from studies ofpartnership working. Equally, the obverse isto be avoided: having the wrong people in thewrong place at the wrong time. This elementapplies at all levels within any organisation.It is as much a commonplace that particularindividuals can prevent or hinder partnershipdevelopment as that they can be importantsources of success. There is evidence both ofthe destructive capacity of the wrong people(i.e. those committed to the pursuit oforganisational or professional self-interest)being in the wrong place and the importance tojoint working of partnership ‘champions’working in the collective interest. Havingthe right people involved in this way is amatter of careful selection, the exercise ofpeer pressure and strong performancemanagement. It is also, of course, partly aquestion of luck.

17

PRINCIPLE 4Develop and Maintain Trust

Elements of the principle

A. Ensure each partner’s contribution is equally recognised and

valued.

B. Ensure fairness in the conduct of the partnership.

C. Ensure fairness in distribution of partnership benefits.

D. Ensure the partnership is able to sustain a sufficient level of

trust to survive external problems which create mistrust

elsewhere.

E. Trust built up within partnerships needs to be high enough to

encourage significant risk taking.

F. Ensure that the right people are in the right place at the right

time.

Rapid Partnership Profile

To what extent do you agree with each of the following sixstatements in respect of the Partnership which is the subject of this assessment exercise as a whole? The way the partnership is

structured recognises and valueseach partner’s contribution.

The way the partnership’s work is conducted appropriately recognises each partner’s contribution.

Benefits derived from the partnership are fairly distributed among all partners.

There is sufficient trust withinthe partnership to survive any mistrust that arises elsewhere.

Levels of trust within the partnership are high enough to encourage significant risk-taking.

The partnership has succeeded inhaving the right people in the right place at the right time topromote partnership working.

Scores Total:

PRINCIPLE 5: CREATE CLEAR AND ROBUST PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENTSThis principle refers to the need to ensure that partnership working is not hindered by cumbersome,elaborate and time-consuming working arrangements. The evidence is that unduly complex structuresand processes reflect partners’ defensiveness about their own interests and uncertainty aboutdegrees of mutual trust. The result of such excess bureaucracy is frustration amongst the partnersand a sapping of their enthusiasm for, and commitment to, the partnership. This is doubly the casewhere – as has often been the case – partnership working is seen as peripheral rather than corebusiness.

Partnership working arrangements thus should be as lean as possible, with generally time-limitedand task-oriented joint structures. The two other essential requirements are: (a) a prime focus onprocesses and outcomes rather than structures and inputs; and (b) clarity about partners' areas ofresponsibility and lines of accountability.

Element A: Transparency in the financialresources each partner brings to thepartnership.

Partnerships often founder because partnerslabour under some misapprehension about whatfinancial resources – both capital and revenue– other partners bring to the table. Thisneeds to be spelt out for a number of reasons.First, there may be uncertainty about how muchis devoted by each partner to a specific fieldof activity. Second, there may be limitationsimposed upon partners by their ‘parent’organisations as to the use of resources.Finally, there needs to be an understanding ofthe stability associated with each other'sresources, and an appreciation thatpartnership may have to cope with reductionsin previously agreed resource levels. In somerespects this mirrors the principles ofclarity of purpose and expectation: not justwhat people or organisations expect to getfrom the partnership, but also what they arefinancially able to contribute to it.

Element B: Awareness and appreciation of thenon-financial resources each partner brings tothe partnership.

Resources should be seen as comprising notjust finance, but also a host of otherpotential partnership assets. Some of thesewill be tangible, such as human resources,facilities and services such as IT. Othersare less tangible, and may comprise knowledge,experience, power and legitimacy. Communitygroups, for example, may have few tangibleresources, but their involvement can confer alocal legitimacy which could otherwise belacking. Appreciation, not just awareness, ofeach partner's contribution to a partnership

is an important element in continuedcommitment and the willingness to investresources and take risks.

Element C: Distinguish single from collectiveresponsibilities and ensure they are clear andunderstood.

Significant difficulties can arise whenpartnerships begin to implement jointly agreedplans if there is insufficient clarity aboutthe respective responsibilities of individualpartners. Each partner needs to be clearabout - and accept – such divisions ofresponsibility, whether for areas of funding,staffing or service delivery. Without cleardelineations of responsibility there ispotential for confusion and mistrust.Partnership members need to be able, on theone hand, to show other partners that they aredoing their fair share; and, on the otherhand, they need to be able to show thosewithin their parent organisation that theyhaven’t given away too much or ‘sold out’ and‘gone native’.

Element D: Ensure clear lines ofaccountability for partnership performance.

Clarity about lines of accountability is adual-faceted requirement. First, thoseinvolved need to know how they – and eachother – are accountable for partnership work,both to their own organisation and to thepartnership as a whole. Second, it is vitalthat there is clear accountability for theperformance of the partnership as a whole –across all partners.

18

Element E: Develop operational partnershiparrangements which are simple, time-limitedand task-oriented.

Unduly complex or restrictive partnershipworking arrangements often reflect low levelsof trust between partners and caution about‘giving too much away’. Instead arrangementsshould reflect both urgency and a sharp focus;otherwise there is, all too easily, a sense ofdrift which saps partners’ enthusiasm andcommitment.

Such concentration of effort is a maxim thatcan be applied to single agency working, butis more important in the case of partnershipworking because: (a) the scope for lack offocus is inherently greater when severalpartners are involved; and (b) partnershipworking often exists on the edge ofindividuals’ day-to-day working within theirparent organisation.

Element F: Ensure the prime focus is onprocess, outcomes and innovation.

Closely related to the need for structures tobe time-limited and task-oriented is the needfor the prime focus of partnership working tobe processes and outcomes rather thanstructure and inputs. The importance of thismanagement principle is magnified in the caseof partnership working where initial energycan all too easily be diverted into creatingstructural arrangements which reflect relativeresource strength or perceived status.

19

PRINCIPLE 5Create Clear and Robust Partnership Arrangements

Elements of the principle

A. Transparency in the financial resources each partner brings to

the partnership.

B. Awareness and appreciation of the non-financial resources each

partner brings to the partnership.

C. Distinguish single from collective responsibilities and ensure

they are clear and understood.

D. Ensure clear lines of accountability for partnership performance.

E. Develop operational partnership arrangements which are simple,

time-limited and task-oriented.

F. Ensure the prime focus is on process, outcomes and innovation.

Rapid Partnership Profile

To what extent do you agree with each of the following sixstatements in respect of the Partnership which is the subject of this assessment exercise as a whole? It is clear what financial

resources each partner brings tothe partnership.

The resources, other than finance, each partner brings to the partnership are understood and appreciated.

Each partner's areas of responsibility are clear and understood.

There are clear lines of accountability for the performance of the partnership as a whole.

Operational partnership arrangements are simple, time-limited and task-oriented.

The partnership’s principal focus is on process, outcomes and innovation.

Scores Total:

PRINCIPLE 6:MONITOR, MEASURE AND LEARNThis principle refers to the reflective component of partnership working. Such a review functionis, of course, an integral part of any single agency planning and management process. It is evenmore important, however, in partnership working where there may be doubts about levels ofcommitment or about the costs and benefits to individual partners. The latter is especially thecase if the partnership is seen by some as non-core business. Monitoring, measuring and learningis, therefore, an essential part not just of assessing performance but, in so doing, of cementingcommitment and trust.

Element A: Agree a range of success criteria.

Success criteria need to be agreed – and madeexplicit – both for the service aims andobjectives and for the partnership itself. Asindicated above, service aims and objectivesmay be successfully achieved but perhapsultimately at the cost of a fracturedpartnership. Conversely it may be commonlyagreed that whereas the service aims andobjectives have not been achieved,nevertheless there have been significantbenefits in terms of joint working between thepartners; for example, an improvedunderstanding of individual agency resourceconstraints, improved knowledge ofconstitutional/legal obstacles, improvedlevels of trust.

Element B: Develop arrangements for monitoringand reviewing how well the partnership’sservice aims and objectives are being met.

There is often scepticism, amongst partnershipmembers and parent organisations, about theextent to which the benefits of collaborativeworking exceed the costs to individualpartners. It is important, therefore, tomonitor the extent to which collectivelyagreed aims and objectives are being met –and, where necessary, to revise those aims.It is not just a straightforward closing ofthe management and planning cycle, it is animportant element of continuous feedback and,thereby, of organisational learning.

Element C: Develop arrangements for monitoringand reviewing how effectively the partnershipitself is working.

This monitoring and review function isdifferent in its focus. Here the aim is toexamine not whether the service aims andobjectives of the partnership are being

achieved but how well the partnership itselfis working. Indeed, this is precisely thefunction of the Partnership Assessment Tool.Even if the jointly agreed service aims andobjectives are being successfully met it willbe important to reflect on how far this is dueto a healthy and smoothly functioningpartnership or whether by contrast they arebeing achieved only at some cost to individualpartnership members – which in the longer termmay be undue and unsustainable. Elaboratereview machinery is not required, but it willbe insufficient for partnership members simplyto think that such a review can be conductedentirely informally and without all membersbeing involved. The consequences of thelatter are likely to be divisiveness andmistrust.

Element D: Ensure widespread dissemination ofmonitoring and review findings amongstpartners.

The evidence is that partnership schemes haveoften existed on the periphery oforganisations – as atypical initiatives attheir respective boundaries. One result isthat the lessons learnt from such jointworking – whether of success or failure – areseldom systematically fed back to theorganisational heartland. The messages arenot disseminated amongst other services oracross other functions and geographical areas.Without such evaluation taking place thesesame lessons are seldom used to inform otherpartnership working elsewhere.

Element E: Celebrate and publicise partnershipsuccess and root out continuing barriers.

20

This is closely allied to the previous elementand underlines the need for some of thetraditional scepticism about joint working –or doubts about the chance of success, otherthan at undue cost – to be countered. In somesense publicising local success removes the‘fig-leaf’ from those who would argue thatpartnership working is inherently problematicand often impossible. It is a way ofdemonstrating that the barriers can beovercome. It is also a way of demonstratingwhat is needed to root out the continuingbarriers and to underline that the lessons arefrequently generalisable – i.e. the lessonsspelt out elsewhere in this Assessment Tool.

Element F: Reconsider/revise partnership aims,objectives and arrangements.

Although described here as the logical ‘laststep’ in this audit/assessment cycle, thiselement could equally be seen as its startingpoint. Reconsideration need not lead torevision or refinement of aims, objectives orarrangements but it provides the opportunityfor recognising, for example, previous over-ambition or lack of ambition, lack ofcommitment or structures and process whichmarginalise rather than involve partnersappropriately.

21

PRINCIPLE 6Monitor, Measure and LearnElements of the principle

A. Agree a range of success criteria.B. Develop arrangements for monitoring and reviewing how well the

partnership’s service aims and objectives are being met.C. Develop arrangements for monitoring and reviewing how effectively

the partnership itself is working.D. Ensure widespread dissemination of monitoring and review findings

amongst partners.E. Celebrate and publicise partnership success and root out

continuing barriers.F. Reconsider/revise partnership aims, objectives and arrangements.

Rapid Partnership Profile

To what extent do you agree with each of the following sixstatements in respect of the Partnership which is the subject of this assessment exercise as a whole? The partnership has clear

success criteria in terms ofboth service goals and thepartnership itself.

The partnership has cleararrangements effectively tomonitor and review howsuccessfully its service aimsand objectives are being met.

There are clear arrangementseffectively to monitor andreview how the partnershipitself is working.

There are clear arrangements toensure that monitoring andreview findings are, or will be,widely shared and disseminatedamongst the partners.

Partnership successes are well communicated outside of the partnership.

There are clear arrangements toensure that partnership aims,objectives and workingarrangements are reconsideredand, where necessary, revised inthe light of monitoring andreview findings.

Scores Total:

COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT

Having addressed and scored each of the six statements for each of the six Principles there are now two other important issues to consider:

1. How you would weight the six Principles in terms of their current significance for your partnership – givenits nature and stage of development.

2. How well you think the partnership is doing in achieving its aims and objectives.

1. The Relative Significance of the 6 Principles

It is clear that many, or even most, people completing thisassessment will want to say that one or other of the six Principlesis more significant – and maybe much more significant – than othersgiven:

the nature of the Partnership the stage of development of the Partnership your place within the Partnership

Let us take, as an example, a Public/Private partnership which isreasonably mature and well–developed. Someone completing thisassessment who has been involved in drawing up and implementing aformal, legally binding partnership contract might think Principle 1has little significance – acceptance of the need for Partnershipbeing self–evident. However, there might not be the samerecognition or acceptance at other levels within the partnerorganisations. Also, it may be worth occasionally checking whetherthe recognition and acceptance assumed to be reflected in thecontract still exists among those responsible for its inception.

Another example would be a proposed or newly formed Partnership inwhich partners might argue that Principles 1 and 2 especially weremuch more significant than Principle 6.

Whatever your view please record below what you think is thesignificance of each of the six Partnership Principles currently.

Please put a circle around the point you think most appropriatefor each Principle:

MORE SIGNIFICANT LESS SIGNIFICANT

PRINCIPLE 1.

PRINCIPLE 2.

PRINCIPLE 3.

PRINCIPLE 4.

PRINCIPLE 5.

PRINCIPLE 6.

2. Current Partnership Success

To what extent do you agree with the following statement in respect of the Partnership, as a whole, which is the subject of this assessment?

The partnership is achieving itsaims and objectives

Please add below any comments on the performance of the Partnership.

STAGE 3: ANALYSIS OF FINDINGS AND FEEDBACK

Each partner will have completed a scoring sheet for each of the 6Principles. For each of the principles, partners will haveindicated their level of agreement/disagreement with the 6statements related to the individual principles. The individualscores for each principle should then be totalled to give anaggregate score (within the range 144-36) for each partner. Thescores should be transferred to the 'dartboard' graphic below byshading the appropriate segment for each of the six Principles.

1. Understanding the results: in outline

In simple terms you can interpret the results as follows:

PRINCIPLE 1: RECOGNISE AND ACCEPT THE NEED FOR PARTNERSHIP

19-24: Very high recognition and acceptance of the need for partnership

13-18: The need for partnership is recognised and accepted 7-12: Recognition and acceptance of the need for partnership

is limited 6 Recognition and acceptance of the need for partnership

is minimal

PRINCIPLE 2: DEVELOP CLARITY AND REALISM OF PURPOSE

19-24: The purpose of the partnership is very clear and realistic

13-18: There is some degree of purpose and reality to the partnership

7-12: Only limited clarity and realism of purpose exists 6: The partnership lacks any clarity or sense of

purpose

PRINCIPLE 3: ENSURE COMMITMENT AND OWNERSHIP

19-24: The partnership is characterised by strong commitment and wide ownership

13-18: There is some degree of commitment to, and ownership of, the partnership

7-12: Only limited partnership commitment and ownership can be identified

6: There is little or no commitment to, or ownership of, the partnership

PRINCIPLE 4: DEVELOP AND MAINTAIN TRUST

19-24: There is well developed trust among partners 13-18: There is some degree of trust amongst partners 7-12: Trust amongst partners is poorly developed 6: There is little or no trust among partners

PRINCIPLE 5: CREATE CLEAR AND ROBUST PARTNERSHIP WORKING ARRANGEMENTS

19-24: Partnership working arrangements are very clear androbust

13-18: Partnership working arrangements are reasonably clear and robust

7-12: Partnership working arrangements are insufficiently clear and robust

6: Partnership working arrangements are poor.

PRINCIPLE 6: MONITOR, MEASURE AND LEARN

19-24: The partnership monitors, measures and learns from its performance very well

13-18: The partnership monitors, measures and learns from its performance reasonably well

7-12: The partnership monitors, measures and learns from its performance poorly in some respects

6: The partnership monitors, measures and learns from its performance poorly in most respects or not at all

AGGREGATE SCORES

109–144 The partnership is working well enough in all or mostrespects to make the need for further detailed workunnecessary.

73–108 The partnership is working well enough overall but someaspects may need further exploration and attention.

37–72 The partnership may be working well in some respectsbut these are outweighed by areas of concern sufficientto require remedial action.

36 The partnership is working badly enough in all respectsfor further detailed remedial work to be essential.

RAPID PARTNERSHIP PROFILES SCORES

Put total score for each principle in appropriate segment below

and shade in that segment

A 19-24B 13-18C 7-12D 6

AGGREGATE PROFILE SCORE =(Total of all six principles)

Date:………………………………….2. Understanding the results: detailed analysis and feedback

Partners need to share their individual assessments, examining areasof common or differing views about partnership strengths andweaknesses. What becomes readily, and graphically, apparent iswhere there is broad agreement or disagreement across partners. Thedepth to which the responses need to be explored – and the way inwhich they are explored – depends largely upon the degree ofconsensus, the nature of the findings, and the significance attachedto the findings by partners. Thus, if all partners are agreed thatthe partnership is reasonably healthy across all six Principles,including those generally agreed to be the most significant, thereis little need of action planning beyond agreeing when and how toconduct the next 'health check'.

If, however, some partners have assessed the partnership as'unhealthy' in some respects – and especially if this is in areasgenerally agreed to be significant – this will require furtherdetailed examination. Depending upon the sensitivity of the issuesand the size of the partnerships this examination is often best donein a facilitated feedback workshop. In some cases – for example,over differences of view about the degree of trust and mistrust – itmay be necessary to conduct interviews separately with individualpartners. It is in the detailed feedback and analysis sessions thatpartners can look behind their bald scoring and explore commentsabout individual elements and the weighting of principles.

The essence of this feedback and analysis is to better understandpartnership strengths and weaknesses and, if necessary, planremedial action. What this Tool does is to reveal simply,graphically and quickly areas upon which to concentrate. It allowsa focus of effort and resources.

STAGE 4: ACTION PLANNING

The principal aim of this Tool is to enable assessment ofpartnership working. However, the assessment process must be seento conclude with a plan for action. If we take the three broadalternative scenarios outlined in our earlier diagram we can seewhat this might comprise.

Feedback on the overall process identifies:

structured information about people's perceptions throughout thepartnership;

opportunities to compare and contrast the views of differentpartners which provided an opportunity to plan remedial action;

a process which in itself opened up a debate that introduced moreopenness and transparency about partners' views on partnershipworking.

The benefits of using this assessment tool ought to be a clearindication of the nature and scale of problems, of where action isneeded most and where it is required most urgently. And although itis a primarily diagnostic tool, the partnership Principles and theirconstituent elements provide a general prescriptive account of howpartnership working can be strengthened. It is for those involvedin particular partnerships to apply these general principles totheir local circumstances.