By Julian Thomas | 2 Sep 2015

I attended a forum two weeks ago in Melbourne and was fortunate to hear Professor Helen Sullivan from the Melbourne School of Government speaking about collaboration in human services systems.

One thing she said in particular caught my attention: that collaboration (or more realistically, aspiration to it) is the new norm – it’s no longer the ‘way of the future’, but the reality of how systems need to be configured to deal with complexity now.

I can safely say that in pretty much all of the strategic advisory and program evaluation work I have been doing with Urbis, collaboration, integration and co-location between sectors, organisations and professionals is a consistent theme.

A few key reflections come to mind when I think about the work Urbis has completed in the past few years.

 

 

Integration means organising two or more system components in a way that leads to:

  • increased efficiency of service operation
  • improvement in service effectiveness, or
  • a more joined-up experience for service consumers.

This definition is one we have preferred in recent projects , which prioritises outcome over process.

 

The currency of client-provider relationships is trust. Simply co-locating services is potentially enabling of passive trust transfer: where a client has a good relationship with one provider, some of that trust may carry over to other providers who have common brand association; shared reception; signage; spaces and places.

There are a few direct benefits to co-locating, including the potential to reduce capital expenditure (if you can reduce the footprint you need to build), and to secure operational efficiencies (if you agree to share operating costs).

Often, however, co-location is explicitly pursued as a strategy to enable service integration.  Some of this might happen spontaneously as a result of decreased transactional costs of inter-service activity (e.g. informal knowledge exchange, referrals).

But even when everyone’s cosily co-habiting in the new community hub, more sophisticated levels of integration needs conscious intent, active planning, resources and of course, time.

So while co-location makes integration easier, it’s neither a pre-requisite nor an inevitable precursor to it.

There are plenty of models applicable to network approaches too (one I like is White and Winkworth’s development of the Collaboration Rubric).

 

There are many, but in my experience the recurrent ones (in human services systems anyway) are:

  • the costs of systemic inefficiencies
  • gaps created by siloing of specialised (sub)systems
  • complexity and multiplicity of need, and
  • desire to improvement to the client experience.

 

Well, it depends which benefit you’re looking at, but the most interesting change mechanism for me lies in what happens to client-provider and provider-provider relationships that support improved system effectiveness and client experience.

The currency of client-provider relationships is trust. Simply co-locating services is potentially enabling of passive trust transfer: where a client has a good relationship with one provider, some of that trust may carry over to other providers who have common brand association; shared reception; signage; spaces and places.

Active trust transfer occurs through integration, where services who hold relationships with clients leverage the trust they have to link clients to new programs and services through warm handovers, introductions, and personal recommendations.

On the other hand, integrated working strengthens provider-provider relationships through relational agency. Relational agency is a phenomenon described by Anne Edwards that in simplistic terms involves the building of a common knowledge across professional boundaries that allows providers to individually and collectively contribute to more holistic responses to complexity.

This article originally appeared on LinkedIn.

Julian Thomas View Profile

Leave a Reply