Keywords

1 Introduction

While collaborative governance is a fashionable cache in the public administration literature, its literature remains idiosyncratic its use inconsistent [1]. It also does not bring the positive spine because of the challenges and barriers which must be met. Little research has been conducted on identifying the barriers to boundary less collaboration. In this research, inspired by design thinking, the article draws on the case study analysis to produce a synergy map, which provides a comprehensive view for scholars and practitioners to overcome several barriers. Then, I discuss the utilities illustrated in the synergy map to describe the potential role of digital tools, and the cognitive perspective in addressing the barriers of cross-sector collaboration.

2 Collaborative Governance: The State of Theorizing

Several important holistic frameworks for understanding cross-sector collaboration have been published since early 2000. The earlier ones include [2,3,4,5], which were based on prior works [6,7,8,9]; the latter ones include [1, 10]. The literature has delineated different uses and concepts of collaboration, which will be reviewed briefly in Table 1.

Table 1. Major cross-sectoral theoretical frameworks
Full size table

Most of these frameworks do not pay attention to critical steps to facilitate collaboration, but some do contribute important insights. This study focuses on the barriers by focusing on these questions: What are the barriers and how they can be addressed? What is the potential for digital tools to address barriers?

3 Research Methodology

A Systematic Literature Review (SLR) was conducted using the Thomé et al.’s [11] step-by-step approach. The search relied on these key words: collaboration, cross-sector collaboration, collaborative governance, public-private partnership. Armed with a working definition of collaborative governance to identify a wide range of case studies from the peer-reviewed journals, the search generated articles across a wide range of disciplines, including specialist journals in public health, public administration, social welfare, environmental studies, etc. I also followed up on the literature cited in the cases and finally after excluding the additional studies, it led to 162 case studies. Although international in scope, my search was restricted to case studies in English, following this distribution: North America (78), Europe (59), Asia (22), Australia (3).

The universe of the cases reviewed were studies of an attempt to implement collaborative governance in different sectors and they differed in quality and methodology. The level of collaboration in the cases differed; in most cases a few partners collaborated, while the rest were either at regional level or they were cases in which the government collaborated with non-profits and for profits. As the language used to describe in the cases was far from standardized, it was virtually impossible to find a common language to code studies, and along with the problem of missing data, a quasi-experimental approach could not work. To move from abstract vague concepts to the more concrete ones in a step-by-step fashion, I applied a meta-analytic strategy called successive approximation [12]. A subset of the cases was selected based on their clarity and diversity to identify the barriers of each phase of collaboration. A second subset of cases was randomly selected to test the items developed in the first round. A third sample of cases was used to test the findings, and the list of barriers was finalized after being compared with the fourth sample of cases. As I proceeded, variables and causal relationships proliferated beyond what I felt would ultimately be useful for scholars and practitioners. Therefore, judgement was exerted to develop a nuanced but parsimonious representation of key variables.

4 Cross-Sector Collaboration Barriers

Table 2 provides a visual representation of my most central findings. The process of successive approximation yielded nine broad variables, which were the challenges. Nine barriers were identified which are clustered in three main groups “communication”: siloed institutions, insufficient representation of world views, inadequate communication methods; “cognitive”: disintegrated solutions to wicked problems, misunderstanding of core concepts, ineffective thinking paradigms; and “power”: limited power and resource, inability to participate effectively in talks, lack of inclusive engagement.

Table 2. Barriers of collaborative governance
Full size table

These barriers emerge over three main phases of collaboration that is pre-condition, the main iterative phase of collaboration to effectively address the public problem, and finally outcomes and accountability.

5 Barriers and the Potential of Digital Tools

The systematic review of the cases led to the identification of nine barriers crucial to facilitating collaboration. These problems gradually emerge as collaboration unfolds over time.

Asymmetry of power and also lack of incentive of siloed institutions exist in the first phase of most cross sector collaborations [13,14,15,16]. Power imbalance is the source of challenge [6, 17, 18] and when some stakeholders do not participate on an equal footing with other stakeholders, the collaborative governance process will be prone to manipulation by stronger actors. Power imbalance is inter-related to two other barriers: some stake holders do not have the organizational infrastructure to participate in collaborative governance processes [19], and some others may not engage in discussions about highly technical problems since they are overpowered by other stakeholders [20, 21].

In the second cycle of phase one, frequent, informal social networking plays an important role in promoting formal collaborative partnerships [22, 23]. However, there are two barriers in this part: some stakeholders may not have the organizational infrastructure to participate, and some other ones, mainly weak ties [24], are underrepresented due to lack of access to appropriate communication platforms. Since the phases are inter-related, the barriers of phase one create the challenges of the second phase of collaborative process. When some actors and stakeholders are absent, the thinking paradigm of participants might be reductionist and insufficient to structure the problem effectively. Moreover, if there is no ambidextrous leader to nullify asymmetry of power and encourage inclusivity, core concepts might be misunderstood, hence the solutions either partial or disintegrated [25, 26]. The synergy map (Fig. 1) describes the relationships among barriers and tools.

Fig. 1.
figure 1

Synergy map

Full size image

5.1 Conceptual Frameworks

Conceptual frameworks, which are described with schematic images, are tools to help us think but they are also built on particular world views, depending on the background and experiences of their developers. By revealing some concepts and excluding others, they act as a lens through which we perceive the world [27]. Considering the wicked problems in a collaborative process from a single perspective can only provide a limited understanding and some ideas and methods will be easily overlooked [28], which makes collaboration more time and resource consuming.

Two prominent examples of conceptual frameworks which have not fully integrated with public policy are “design thinking” and “integral theory”. Design thinking, which emerged in 1950s and recently migrated to public sector as an emerging field of practice [29, 30], introduces many methods for creating harmonious and organizational context-sensitive solutions to complex problems which are multi-faceted, vaguely defined and socially contested [31], which makes this tool an ideal choice to address these two barriers: disintegrated solutions and misunderstanding of core concepts. Integral theory, on the other hand, unites objective, subjective, individual and collective perspectives into a more complete, complementary approach [32] which is pertinent to behavioral and psychological dimensions of collaboration, and provides the breadth of scope and the agility required for collaboration. Integral theory, by definition, is capable of dealing with siloed institutions and insufficient representation of world views, the first two barriers in Fig. 1.

5.2 The Potential of Visual Tools

By employing visual communication, stakeholders and actors can expand their ability to clarify, inspire, collaborate and think [33] since the symbolic systems affect how we perceive, and communicate about the world. Written words encode meaning into sequence of statements, which is only a fraction of what an image can illustrate. Over reliance on words, in the second phase of collaboration, fails to reflect the complexities, and further nuance and complexity must then be communicated by articulating color, size, shape, pattern and composition [34, 35]. Digital platforms expand this palette to include user interaction and movement [36]. When it comes to visual thinking and collaboration, two theories must be discussed: situation awareness theory [37] and theory of grounding in communication [38, 39].

Situation awareness theory suggests that visual information improves coordination by giving actors an accurate view of the task state and one another’s activities [37]. It is important to note that the visual information does not need to be identical for all group members for it to support situation awareness, as long as it allows them to form an accurate view of the current situation and appropriately plan future actions [40]. For example, two fighter pilots can converge on a target aircraft, even if one of them uses the visual line of sight and the other uses radar to see the target. However, if the differing displays lead them to form different situational representations, then their performance is likely to suffer. In other words, if visual sighting allows one pilot to distinguish between friendly and enemy aircraft but the radar fails to support this discrimination for the other pilot, then the two fighters are unlikely to coordinate their attack purely on the basis of the situation awareness provided by the visual information. Situation awareness, therefore, has the potential to address disintegrated solutions in collaborative process.

Theory of grounding indicates that in communication, visual information improves coordination by supporting the verbal communication surrounding a collaborative activity [41,42,43]. This theory suggests that successful communication relies on a foundation of mutual knowledge or common ground. Conversational grounding is the process of establishing common ground, an essential entity over the second phase of collaboration while discussing the core concepts to structure the problem. In conversational grounding, speakers form utterances based on an expectation of what a listener is likely to know and then monitor that the utterance was understood, whereas listeners have a responsibility to demonstrate their level of understanding [44, 45]. Throughout a conversation, participants are continually assessing what other participants know to formulate the steps [38, 39, 44], and unite various views of stakeholders to structure the problem, which makes it a promising choice to deal with the following barriers: misunderstanding of core concepts, inability to participate effectively in talks and lack of inclusive engagement.

5.3 Online Collaboration Platforms

By providing a platform for knowledge sharing and collaboration, online networks can help to address several barriers to collaboration. Free from geographic constraints, online networks can ideally connect people from different organizations, disciplines and communities. If the interface allows, these communication channels can promote sharing of knowledge across silos. Real-time feedback loops can foster a more rapid evolution of ideas than annual conferences or quarterly publications. Dialogues between different cultural groups can help to critique and develop societal values. Inclusive, multi-way dialogues across disciplinary boundaries can go a long way towards integrating diverse knowledge and perspectives for more inclusive conceptual frameworks of sustainability.

When people and computers interact via networks, new intellectual pursuits become possible [46]. By facilitating and structuring collaboration between people with different expertise, online networks can aid creative problem solving [47]. For example, existing online networks assist in collective design (e.g., Linux), decision-making (e.g., Threadless), data analysis (e.g., citizen science) and idea generation (e.g., Flood of Ideas). Being ambitious in their goals, these online platforms can address an array of barriers: siloed institutions, limited power and resource, inadequate communication methods, insufficient representation of world views, ineffective thinking paradigms, and disintegrated solutions.

5.4 Synergy Among Tools

Conceptual frameworks, visual tools, and collaborative platforms are powerful tools on their own, but when combined successfully, each tool enhances the effectiveness of the others. The synergy among them is as follows: “Conceptual frameworks” provide a clear structure of ideas making “visual communication” effective. Visual tools in turn allows for a high density of information and expression of complex relationships and emergent properties. Moreover, “Visual tools” provide the right input for conceptual frameworks. “Conceptual frameworks” support online collaboration platforms by providing a meaningful structure for knowledge sharing and discussions across the disciplines, helping researchers and practitioners to avoid a reductionist approach and develop more integrated frameworks. This leverage, in fact, make them prime candidates for further research and investment to facilitate cross-boundary collaboration.

As discussed above, human and computers thinking together, that is cognitive collaboration [46], is ideally a promising way to work with diverse stakeholders to address the barriers of collaborative governance regimes, facilitate collaboration, and reach an understanding of the elephant [48].

6 Conclusion

In this research, I reviewed the cross-sector collaboration case studies from various sectors in order to identify the barriers and developed a synergy map to show the potential of digital tools in addressing them. This research argues that these digitally driven tools are capable of enhancing cross sector collaboration and further the aspiration of democratic governance [49]. In calls for future research, a number of themes are apparent, including, most obviously, the need to view collaborations as complicated dynamic systems. Within these systems, a better understanding is needed of, for example, how to analyze all moving parts of collaboration simultaneously; how digital tools and conceptual frameworks facilitate collaboration and bring cognitive collaboration on the stage.