AV, NLFF and Tyneside Cinema case study

8/7/2019 AV, NLFF and Tyneside Cinema case study

1/10

AV Festival (AV) Northern Lights Film Festival(NLFF) and Tyneside Cinema (TC)

Making the case for Disciplined Collaboration

Introduction

One of the most simple and powerful frameworks for working out how toachieve successful collaborative working is Morten Hansens idea ofdisciplined collaboration which he sums up as follows: the leadership

practice of properly assessing when to collaborate (and when not to) andinstilling in people both the willingness and the ability to collaborate whenrequired.

His solution to achieving disciplined collaboration is to pursue the followingthree steps:

Step 1: Evaluating opportunities for collaborationStep 2. Spot Barriers to collaborationStep 3. Tailor solutions to tear down the barriers

This case story has been written using Hansens simple framework toilluminate the challenges this group faced as they embarked on theircollaboration. It aims to underline how paying serious attention to these threestages offers collaborative endeavour a better chance of succeeding. By

explaining the difficulties faced by this group in each of these stages, we hopeto share valuable learning with other embarking on similar journeys.

Background to the organisations

All three organisations (two festivals, one cinema) are based in the TCbuilding (AV and NLFF as tenants of TC). At the start of this pilot, TCprovided financial services to both festivals.

AVis a bi-annual festival that was initially established and delivered by TC.The second festival was delivered by a partnership that included TC, and then

in 2007 AVANE1 was formally constituted as an independent charitablecompany. The festival has been led by an artistic director since 2004 andRebecca Shatwell was appointed to this role in September 2008. Prior to

becoming a tenant of TC, AV was supported by the TC, through subsidisedrent and IT systems. In July 2009 at the outset of this collaboration, AV had

just completed its first three-year business plan, and recruited a new team ofstaff and contractors to deliver the 2010 festival.

TC had been in its new building for one year when this collaboration beganand had delivered a series of projects (including digital arts commissioning)

1 Audio Visual Arts North East


2/10


3/10

preservation at a critical moment of flux2, whilst the other had a new directorin post needing to produce an impactful first festival.

Thirdly, whilst the three organisations had a history of collaboration, previouscollaborations had been dependant on an entirely different configuration of

personnel.

All three of these new realities meant that the collaboration began underexceptionally complicated and unexpected circumstances

Summary of outputs and outcomes

There were certainly some successful collaborative outputs (both artistic andback-office), including:

The complete production of two new artistic commissions

(Heliocentric, a moving-image work by semiconductor, presented at AVFestival; and Feral Trade Caf, a creative collaboration fostered betweenTC and AV which involved placing an artist in the context of the TCscatering operation to look at issues of sustainability).

A further artistic production (by Martin Hampton) was developed as partof a collaboration between TC and NLFF. This output was less concretethan the other productions, being a work-in- progress rather than acompleted work.

In relation to back-office outputs - a shared documentation contract was

developed between NLFF and AV10, which worked well as a one-offcontract with short-term benefit.

Whilst the relationship between each member of the group was notfundamentally different at the end of the process than it had been at the start,the collaborative process did generate some key outcomes;

Feral Trade in particular generated a good level of staff involvement,meaning the MMM collaboration extended beyond the leaders of AV andTC and permeated all levels of each company.

The process of collaborating on a range of artistic commissions led toeach organisation understanding more about the other. All partnersconsidered this action-based learning important.

A significant opportunity identified by all three organisations was theopportunity to experimentin collaborating as a consequence of this pilot.Not having to immediately deliver outputs was useful.

2 In fact, throughout this pilot project, the principal point of contact at

NLFF changed three times, which arguably had a de-stabilising effect on theprocess as relationships built up had to repeatedly be re-developed.


4/10

Although there has been no long-term collaborative relationship borne of thisproject, there is now an incidental person-to-person relationship, beneficial interms of providing a sounding board, arena for sharing experiences etc,

between the two festivals where previously there had been none.

The collaborations enabled incidental shared learning in relation todeveloping works with artists, managing creative and productionrelationships, and specifically beginning to develop an understanding of howto monetize creative output each organization is now looking to developcontracts and models of working that better provide for long-termrecoupment of investment etc.

Following self- evaluation of the collaboration, one participant commentedthat they have more confidence in [themselves] as an organisation, as a resultof the MMM pilot. Being allowed to experiment and learn as part of thecollaborative journey was crucial for all three organisations.

Significantly, having had the MMM experience and upon drawing conclusionsas to the projects successes and failures, the three parties were able to havetheir most frank and open discussion of the entire collaboration. This wouldseem to evidence the MMM conclusions that genuine collaborations needtime to ferment before they grow, but further, one could also speculate thateach of the members involved in this initiative is probably now genuinelymore collaboration-ready, provided the context and partners wereappropriate.

Interestingly some of the achievements brought about by this collaborative

project involved clarifying and separating services and roles, this includedclarifying SLAs where they exist and also changes, particularly in relation to

AV, at board level to reduce conflicts of interest.

The collaborativeprocess however itself was not at all times successful. Byconsidering Morten Hansens Three Steps of Disciplined Collaboration,coupled with some of MMMs findings in the light of this pilot initiative, it ispossible to identify pitfalls and consider some lessons learnt as a result of thisparticular collaboration.

Considering this collaboration against Hansens Three Steps,

The overall learning to be gleaned from this case story is that before itcommences, any potential collaboration should be thoroughly assessed, interms of the motivations behind it and its appropriateness. A collaboration isunlikely to succeed if it is based on assumptions, if all partners do not haveequality and if the partners are not aware of (or do not have the capacity toovercome) likely barriers. By referring to MMMs Diagnostic Framework for

Assessing Healthy Collaboration alongside Hansens Three Steps, a numberof key lessons borne of this collaboration can be identified.3

3Itshouldbenotedhowever,hatthisframeworkwasnotmadeavailabletothisgroupswhilstundergoingtheircollaborationhadsuchamethodologybeensuggested,thegroupwouldhave

endeavouredtofollowit.


5/10

Step 1: Evaluating opportunities for collaboration

The OpportunitiesThe group felt that two sets of collaborative opportunities presented

themselves:a) sharing back-office functionConsolidating shared back office functions in relation to volunteers,fundraising and finance. This felt a natural progression given that the TCalready provided financial services to each festival, and the organisations hada shared history of working with volunteers.4

b) artistic programme and public engagementThe organisations were keen that their collaboration moved beyond these

back-office service-based opportunities and agreed that in addition theywanted to work towards the more ambitious goal of

evolving a collective vision and activities in relation to artistic programmingand public engagement.

Key learning: Establish levels of experience in collaborativeworking.A history of collaboration led to a shared assumption that workingcollaboratively to programme work and engage with audiences would be anatural evolution of the three organisations collective mission. The historyof organisational collaborative working in itself was not enough however;

The key building blocks from which it was presumed the organisations could

construct their collaboration the three organisations operate from the same building they have a shared genesis (both festivals were essentially incubated via

the creative programming of the cinema before becoming independent) their key personnel professionally cross-fertilise (at one point, the key

contacts from both NLFF and TC sat on the board of AV, and the CEOof TC was additionally on the board of NLFF5)

each festival had a history of presenting work at the cinema, and thecinema considered the delivery of each festival as key to its own artisticprogramming/output

each organisation has broadly similar creative interests; film, movingimage, digital media, audiences

At the point of application to MMM there were some existing sharedback-office relationships, and as highlighted earlier, all threeorganisations had previously collaborated on a volunteer scheme.

Whilst this appeared to be a solid base upon which to further developcollaborative working, the opportunities and framework for collaboration

were assumed rather than thoroughly analysed, based on the experience ofeffectively a different (historic) configuration of organisations.

4Evolvewasavolunteerinitiativethatranacrossallthreeorganizationsandwasoneofanumberofinitiativeswherefundraisinghandbeenmanagedjointly.5Rolesandcrossoverhadchangedthroughout,partlyduetotheMMMcollaboration.


6/10

Had the group followed Hansens Three Steps, they would have distinguishedprevious iterations of each company, from their current incarnation (with newleaders, different focuses and operating in a different climate). An audit ofprevious collaborations themselves would have been informative, but would

still not have presented a fully effective road map for this configuration ofindividuals, all of whom had differing (and developing) Competencies,Qualities and Attributes(CQAs) (see Step 3).

Key learning establish the relevance of the collaborative workingpropositionGiven that two of the three organisations were finding their feet individually(identifying new missions, developing new business plans, each directorplanning their first programme of work in post etc), and the third organization(TC) was re-visiting its business plan, it became apparent that identifying ashared or collective mission was going to be difficult, and arguably not timely.

So the group didnt knowhowthe collaboration would or might result in therealisation of a developed collective vision, as the individual visionsthemselves were still taking shape. With a new director in post at each festival(and by this time a restructure also taking place at the cinema), theorganisations were not so much at risk of becoming rigid in the sense of notadapting (as argued in the MMM report, Fuelling the Necessary Revolution)

but were keen to each forge their own way and create new individual identitiesand as such were wary of compromising themselves in the pursuit of this.

Considerable discussion relating to governance issues concerning all three

companies took place, including the mooted suggestion of forming a parentcompany to oversee all three organisations, however this created discomfort

within the group and eventually was not pursued, although governanceoptions have been logged as an area for future consideration amongst all theorganisations.

In terms of back-office function, by the time this group really embarked onthis collaborative pilot, each festival had independently made some moves toseparate certain back-office functions and resources that had previously beenshared with or provided by the cinema (AV in terms of IT systems and NLFFin relation to finance).

In retrospect the question to ask here would have been are these the rightcollaborative partners in this context? Despite their shared history, by theend of the pilot, the organisations concluded that they whilst they haveexisting important and durable long-term alliances (borne both throughhistorical association, but crucially through successful new working models in2010), they werent necessarily the ideal combination of organisations to workcollaboratively on this initiative.6

6Speculatingthatmorebeneficialcollaborationscoldbeforgednationallyandinternationally,wheretherewouldbeagreaterdegreeofsharedcreativealignmentandlesscompetitionsueto

notbeingsoproximateintermsofgeographyorscheduling


7/10

Given that this crucial question wasnt asked at this stage, the organisationsdecided to work together on three creative collaborations with the aim oflearning by doing and assessing the collaborations (and future opportunities)as they developed.

The most relevant opportunity to collaborate in terms of shared services arosepart-way through this pilot; two of the three organisations (the festivals)collaborated on recruiting and engaging individuals to document each festival,

which was both a time- and cost-efficient use of resources (but whichgenerated differing levels of success for each festival due to differences in

briefing and on-the-job management). This joint need would probably nothave been identified had the organisations not already been working togetherthrough this MMM initiative.

Step 2. Spot Barriers to collaboration

The Barriers

Having embarked on a collaborative journey, it became apparent that theseeming commonalities could in fact equally be seen as hindrances or barriers.Each organisation was close in terms of art form (in the broadest sense) andlocation, yet it became apparent that they were in many ways distant fromeach other in terms of ways into understanding each other. This was onesignificant barrier, another being a difficulty in navigating the line betweencollaborating and competing.

Key learning- Demonstrate levels of self-knowledge in relation to

collaborative workingAs already mentioned, the group did not have a genuinely clear sense oflessons learnt from previous collaborations. In terms of CQAs, eachorganisation was represented by one individual7 each of whom hadconsiderable professional knowledge and experience, but issues quickly cameto the fore in relation to differing levels of experience in different areas,creating both feelings of vulnerability and inequality amongst members.

Although the three individuals hadnt directly collaborated as representativesof each organisation previously, each knew the others professionally andpersonally so came to this project with certain pre-conceptions, some of

which were challenged, some of which no doubt coloured the experience. A

further barrier could have been identified as an unlevel playing field -meaning that there were issues of perceived hierarchy between threecompanies; TC was not only a considerably larger organisation, it had existedfor the longest, had essentiallyformedthe other two organizations and wasthe only organisation which had personnel continuity connecting previouscollaborations to this initiative. This issue was never fully and openlyaddressed.

Key learning- identify behavioural, organisational and/or practical barriersEarly on, the group identified that a principal barrier (for the two festivals in

7CEO,DirectorandConsultantwhothenhandedovertonewDirector,followedbyanotherconsultantbroughtonboardafterthefestival.


8/10

particular) would be in constantly negotiating the balance betweencollaboration and competition. This challenge became heightened due to therescheduling of one festival to take place immediately after the other, in thesame city, in the same building(s) and with some of the same externalpartners. Discussions of collaboration turned to fears of brand-dilution, and

another imbalance appeared as the better resourced and arguably more stablefestival felt it potentially had more to lose than gain in terms of an associationwith a less-stable counterpart. There was insufficient shared history at anindividual/leadership level to overcome this fear coupled with NLFF havingno creative lead for a period of time, and then a leader with insufficientcapacity topick up the lead.

The crossover of personnel (in terms of governance and line management,arguably a conflict of interests) was also a barrier to collaboration, althoughthis was only partially acknowledged.

The identification of these barriers highlights that the reasons forcollaboration and an ability to undertake it had been assumed rather thanrigorously interrogated. Had such an interrogation taken place, it is likely thatcollaboration between these three organisations may not have been pursued,certainly not in the expectation of producing a result within the remainingtimeframe for the pilot.

Key learning- Identify resourcing needs including early stage TAneedsThere was a genuine understanding from all parties that they would each needto release time, energy, and financial resources to truly move a collaboration

forward, yet each organisation (and the two festivals in particular) were upagainst their own schedules, and would have had insufficient humanresources to engage with this experimental process if MMM had notsupported this collaboration. Fuelling the Necessary Revolution identifiessome difficulties experienced by larger organisations in relation tocollaborative working, but it is important too to acknowledge that leaders ofsmall organisations are similarly stretched, often being expected to havespecialist skills across a variety of areas ranging from artistic programme tocompany strategy. This group was divided in the early stages over the value ofdeveloping certain soft-skills, and this early stage indecision was subsequentlyparked as each member focused instead on the creative collaborations.

From Fuelling the Necessary Revolution:

underestimating the difficulties of learning amongst what may often behighly diverse groups. Even if people recognise that they need to learntogether, they frequently avoid exploring difficult subjects because theywant to avoid conflict. They know that trust is important but they often lackreliable strategies for building it. They may say they want to workcollaboratively across boundaries, but ultimately self-interest and vestedinterests prevail.

The group engaged an independent project manager to steer the collaborativepilot, reflect on members progress and provide impartial views and guidance.


9/10

Further technical assistance was not brought in until towards the end of theproject each festival director felt they needed to deliver one edition oftheir respective Festivals to identify their own needs before enabling them toestablish what specific technical assistance might be required collectively.This TA worked effectively, and had more time been available it would no

doubt have been useful to receive further assistance in the light of lessonslearnt throughout this process.

Step 3. Tailor solutions to tear down the barriers

Key learning Clarify the shared visionAn early failure in this collaboration was in not evaluating each organisationsaim relating to the overall collaboration and relying too much on assumptionsabout collaboration in the early stages. However rather than thrashing outthese differences, through discussion the three organisations eventually hitupon one aim they all had in common; namely to be involved in the creative

production of new works by artists/filmmakers for presentation to audiences.Clear objectives and a timeframe were agreed and put in-place although

working methodologies were presumed rather than articulated.

This shared activity became the focus of the members, aiming to both generateoutcomes and develop learning along the way. The members worked together(with varying degrees of success) to generate works as agreed, with overallpositive outcomes. This process was intended to enable the group to learntogether and from each other so rather than developing CQAs and thenputting these into practice, the group chose instead to play to membersexisting strengths, with the hope that this would highlight areas for

development. Indeed the group got on with the practice and learnt someinteresting lessons along the way;

Summary of key lessons learnt/observations made throughout thispilot

A key factor in relation to a successful collaboration is clearly understandingthe dynamic at play between the collaborating organisations but also,crucially of the individuals leading the collaborations.

Had there been more equality of experience/confidence from each

organisation/individual in this case story, there might have been moreopenness to learning and specifically to sharing.

From the outset, this group had been in reactive problem-solving mode,working to get a job done rather than truly having the time and space toenter into collaborative working and it became apparent throughout theprocess that each individual had a different understanding or expectation of

what collaboration means, meant, or could offer.

This pilot demonstrated the need to have consistency of contact in terms ofregular meetings, but also in terms of consistency of personnel for a point of

contact to change mid-relationship is disconcerting and destabilizing.


10/10

It is crucial to ensure there is a fully thought-through reason for collaboratingand that the partners are the right ones. This group should have spent moretime on preparation. An in-depth analysis would have demonstrated that thisconfiguration of organisations was not the ideal collaborative base.

Organisations should not assume a special relationship based on historicallegacy, but instead should seek to either develop relationships with a broadrange of partners, or work towards longer-term collaborations with carefullyselected associates.

Documents

AV, NLFF and Tyneside Cinema case study