Multi-Stakeholder Collaboration Part 2: Structuring success

Now that you have the basics of multi-stakeholder collaboration under your belt, we are moving to the bones of the beast. Setting up the right structure, governance and funding may not sound sexy (or maybe it does, if you’re into that kind of thing) – but it’s key to a collaboration’s success.

In part one of this series, we laid out some of the basics of multi-stakeholder collaboration (MSC): How these groups usually get started, why the work is almost always complex and challenging, and the first steps to getting the ball rolling.  

Now, our chefs are back in the kitchen, pointy knives safely stowed. (Read the first blog if that sounds random.) They all have an idea of what should go on the menu, which ingredients should be used, and how it should be prepared and plated.

If the chefs hired me to facilitate this process, I would say “woah, woah, woah - hold on. Close the fridge, put the spices away.” How are you going to work together? How will decisions be made? Who is doing the work? How will we know if it’s working? Who’s paying for all of this?  

If that sounds like a buzz kill, I get it. But if this collaboration is going to work, these conversations need to happen. So here we go.

Core ingredients for collaboration

A lot of MSCs blossom early, but never bear their full fruit. The partnership is proven to be a good idea, but somewhere along the line it breaks down.  

MSCs operate on multiple dimensions over multiple time scales with multiple stakeholders. Typically, the collaboration is looking to make a significant change, where the impact will be seen five or ten years down the road.

To fulfill that commitment, a few key concepts act as the core ingredients: complexity, partner strength, governing structures and time horizons. These are all essential building blocks for a process that will foster genuine collaboration.  

Choosing the right structure

Deciding how to structure an MSC requires a lot of discussion and decision making. How do we collaborate? Through what mechanisms? How do we govern ourselves? Through what structures? How do we operate the collaboration? Through what mechanisms? What role does a funder play? How are decisions made? Who is doing the work?

Yep, this can be a bit of a drag. You’re jazzed to get cooking and this part can be a bit unsexy. That’s why these conversations are often deferred or danced around.  

It’s a bit of a balancing act, because we also don’t want to get so bogged down in the structures that they become the entire focus of the collaboration, and the vision gets lost. So how do you get just enough governance for where you’re at, and how do you keep moving?

There needs to be a governance level that ‘holds’ the aspirations of the collaboration and provides a final stop, decision layer. Here are a few different options (sourced from The MSP Guide: How to design and facilitate multi stakeholder partnerships). Each option comes with benefits and risks that will be appropriate at different times as the collaboration evolves:  

• An steering committee can be a solid structure at the start of an initiative, when the aspirations and theories around change are being developed, structures are being created and negotiations with funders are taking place.
  
  As the collaboration matures, as projects and initiatives or research are underway and working resources need to be assigned, a lead agency may be a good option to provide the governance so the collaboration can benefit from their support systems. The potential disadvantage comes if the association with this lead agency is too strong, and stakeholders start to object or feel marginalized.

• A secretariat or backbone organization that is equally distant from all partners may be an option for responsibilities like convening meetings and paying bills, or managing staff and reporting. It's important to ensure the backbone organization does not become a focus in itself, diverting from the main aspiration.
  ‍
• A decentralized system or open alliance where support functions are distributed among the partners is a good option when there are benefits in distributing the work of the collaboration and when the activity packages are more discrete. The risks in this approach include too much decentralization/disorganization, loss of focus and competing interests.  

Whatever the approach - decision rights and decision maker roles must be clear.  Escalation paths must be clear.  Some MSC’s find it helpful to have formalized oversight from a board, or executive committee or support group that provides inspiration, networks and strategic guidance.

Key elements of the recipe

Governance structure is a must for MSCs—but it’s not the only ingredient needed for a successful collaboration. Here are a few other key elements to consider:

• Strategic guidance and accountability: Clear decision rights, escalation paths, and oversight (formal, or otherwise) are crucial. Groups must be able to differentiate between strategic and operational governance to avoid confusion and delays. Clear agreements, which may include partnering agreements, are vital as stakeholders commit more resources. At least two groups we’ve worked with have stumbled around the question of governance, which led to delays in making important decisions.  
  ‍
• ‍The role of funders: Clarifying funders' roles and responsibilities early on is critical. Funders are entitled to updates on progress but should not make strategic or operational decisions. This separation prevents conflicts of interest and ensures collaboration integrity. It limits the potential for the funder's influence to be disproportionate to stakeholder interests.
  ‍
• Adapting to shifting contexts: Governance delays are problematic, especially when the context around the MSC is constantly shifting. Think about everything that has happened in the last four years that has shifted the context around important issues – a global pandemic, economic ups and downs, a couple of wars. Governments have changed, priorities have changed. MSCs must maintain clear internal and external communications, adapting to changes while keeping stakeholders informed.
  ‍
• ‍Communication plans: The stakes are high, and communication is critical. Ideally, a MSC is developing communication plans for different external audiences to clarify what information is public or not, who needs to approve reports, how information is disseminated, etc. This was critical to one of our MSCs where the external context was constantly shifting. The collaborating partners made every effort to stay aligned internally and were challenged to keep the broader ecosystem uniformly informed, and therefore supportive.  

Bringing it all together

These are some of the crucial elements of building the bones of a successful MSC. While a group can get along for a period of time with a loose structure, there will come a time when decisions need to be made about people, about money, about forward direction that will require a process.

None of this has to be written in stone forever. Governance can have interim structures—think prototype or proof of concept phases versus implementation and operational phases. As the plans progress, something different may be required. It needs to be revisited frequently.

We’ll dive further into this ongoing work in part three of our series. Stay tuned to learn more about maintaining and operating the MSC, keeping it viable, and deciding when it should end or be reconstituted.  

In the meantime, send us a note to share your experiences or thoughts around this blog. We’d love to hear from you.

‍

Photo by Christopher Paul High on Unsplash