Social Enterprises, Knowledgeable Economies and Sustainable

Communities

Winnipeg Inner-City Research AllianceSEED Winnipeg and Menno Simons

College

Understanding & Promoting Effective Partnerships for CED: A Case study of SEED Winnipeg’s Partnerships

Dr. Kirit Patel, Principal InvestigatorGaelene Askeland, Research Assistant

Dr. Jerry Buckland, Co-Investigator

The Objective

Analyze SEED partnerships to:Understand what makes partnerships effectiveDevelop a framework that can be used to make

partnerships more successful

Literature Review - sourcesFocused on journal articles sourced through

academic search engines such as:Academic Search Premier Lexis-Nexis Academic UniverseSage Journals OnlineGoogle ScholarUsing keywords such as “Partnership”, “non-

profit”, and “interorganizational”

Literature Review - findingsThere are many reasons that organizations

enter into partnership including:Attracting government fundingDesire to collaborate on community-based

goalsExtending current services beyond what can be

done alone

Key authors were Osborne & Murray, Lister, Atkinson, Mohr & Spekman

Literature Review - findingsSuccessful partnerships:

Have effective leaders who are continually working at building and sustaining relationships

Have a clear purpose, shared vision, and a high level of respect amongst partners

Share power through collaborative decision-making

Are transparent in all dealings Are committed to achieving goals

Our frameworkThe framework we used was based on

Maurice Atkinson’s efforts at evaluating the complexities of working in partnership. It looks at six dimensions which are then broken down into sub-dimensions.

There was one dimension called Cost Effectiveness that we did not use in our study as we did not want to evaluate the program outputs, but the relationships themselves.

Our frameworkThe dimensions used as a basis for questions

and analysis are: Impact – the extent to which the partnership has added

value and achieved greater impact than had it not existed Vision and Leadership – the extent to which the

partnership has been able to develop a shared and cohesive vision as an outcome of effective leadership

Partnership Dynamics – extent to which the partnership has developed appropriate structures, processes, resources and a culture inductive to collaboration

Strategy and Performance Measurement – extent to which processes for strategic and performance measurement have been embedded within the partnership and the degree to which they are effective.

Our framework Influencing – the extent to which the creation of the

partnership has enhanced the joint understanding of the political, organizational and funding context in which the partnership operates and how effectively it influences at different levels to bring about change.

Participation – the extent to which the partnership actively promotes the involvement of participants/beneficiaries and their communities as stakeholders in collaborative action.

Our methodsThrough a random stratified selection process we

selected 10 partners based on the following criteria:

Length of partnership1 to 2 years3 to 5 years5 years plus

Type of organizationCorporationNon-profit

Current and Past partnerships

Size of organization (approx)small <50 employeesmedium 50 to 250

employeeslarge >250 employees

Partnership typeAsset Builders

Partnership (ABP)Build a Business

Program (BAB)Other

Our methodsWe followed ethical protocol by having each

participant sign a confidentiality agreementInterviews with representatives from each

organizationOne with the individual most closely related to

the program/projectWhere possible, one with a manager or ED,

preferably with knowledge of the history of the partnership

Types of PartnershipFee-for-service contracts, which are strictly that, contracts

to provide training to another organization or materials for a course to be taught by others.

Program adaptation partnerships, that are intended to modify a successful SEED program to be more relevant and user-friendly for a group of people with particular life experiences. The Build a Business program adaptations for Metis and Aboriginal people are examples.

Reach extension partnerships are those that provide services or opportunities to underserved groups that are better engaged through other organizations that already have strong relationships with those groups. The Asset Building Program and the network created to extend that program is a prime example.

Types of PartnershipsNew venture development is a type of partnership that

involves initiating innovative projects with other stakeholders that are outside the typical programmatic partnerships. The Diversity Foods project, which is a for-profit subsidiary in conjunction with the University of Winnipeg Community Renewal Corporation is one of the best examples of this type of partnership.

Project-based collaborations tend to be smaller partnerships that enable organizations to get to know one another prior to engaging in higher risk or heavier commitment engagements together.

Types of Partnerships

Anything to add? Comments or questions so far?

Key findings - Impact

ABP partners find that the partnership enables them to expand their services to clients and build relationships with other organizations

Most organizations find that partnership with SEED enables them to achieve social service goals that contribute to their organization’s sense of purpose

Key findings – Vision & Leadership

Larger organizations predominantly valued innovation and risk taking, and strong capable leaders

Most ABP partners valued relaxed, inclusive interactions where everyone has the opportunity to be heard

Key findings – Partnership DynamicsABP partners predominantly value proactive,

people-powered and empowerment-based partnersNon-ABP partners predominantly value SEED’s

capable, knowledgeable staff, and good reputationMost partners indicated that at least some

commonality in mission, vision, culture, etc. were important for a partnership to be successful. Differences are acceptable as long as they don’t undermine the purpose of the collaboration.

Key findings – Partnership Dynamics

For all organizations interviewed, having the right committed, talented people involved in the partnership, preferably throughout the duration, is an important key to success.

“Organizations drive partnerships; people have relationships”

Key findings – Partnership DynamicsMost partners indicated they had not been in

conflict with SEED, and those that did indicated that issues were addressed quickly and resolved easily.

Most partners believe that there is reciprocity between their organization and SEED.

“The partnership with SEED is the model to hold others to”

Key findings – Strategy & Performance ManagementA mix of formal and informal regular interactions

was valued by most partners

Understanding the value of good quality reporting and committing the resources it takes to do it well is crucial.

Organizations who provide reports to SEED appreciate the effort that SEED makes to make it easier for them, and those who receive reports from SEED value the high quality output.

Key findings - Influencing

A small number of partners express that partnership enables a solidarity which gives wider influence in the community

“There is no greater example of a strong, healthy partnership than the one we have

with SEED”

Key findings - ParticipationPartnerships with other social service organizations where

SEED has (or is perceived to have) more power tend to be balanced because SEED makes effort to share power to the partner through collaborative decision-making. This builds respect and trust with the partner, contributing to a strong relationship

Partnerships with larger organizations that have (or are

perceived to have) more power are balanced through the respect given to them by the partner due to SEED’s competence, transparency and commitment to quality. They are able to have more influence with the larger partners due to this level of respect and trust.

How can we use this?

We have developed a series of questions that organizations can ask themselves as they consider entering into a partnership (see handout)

What sort of operational tools would you find helpful that would enable you to use the information from this research?

Potential ToolsA brief workbook on the key findings?

Length? Depth?

Simple list of questions with examples pulled from the research to support responses?

Others??