Inter-organisational collaboration structures and features to facilitate stakeholder collaboration
Abstract
EconStor is a publication server for scholarly economic literature, provided as a non-commercial public service by the ZBW.
Full text
Ganeshu, Pavithra; Fernando, Terrence; Therrien, Marie-Chiristine; Keraminiyage, Kaushal Article Inter-organisational collaboration structures and features to facilitate stakeholder collaboration Administrative Sciences Provided in Cooperation with: MDPI – Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute, Basel Suggested Citation: Ganeshu, Pavithra; Fernando, Terrence; Therrien, Marie-Chiristine; Keraminiyage, Kaushal (2024) : Inter-organisational collaboration structures and features to facilitate stakeholder collaboration, Administrative Sciences, ISSN 2076-3387, MDPI, Basel, Vol. 14, Iss. 2, pp. 1-18, https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14020025 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/320848 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Citation: Ganeshu, Pavithra, Terrence Fernando, Marie-Chiristine Therrien, and Kaushal Keraminiyage. 2024. Inter-Organisational Collaboration Structures and Features to Facilitate Stakeholder Collaboration. Administrative Sciences 14: 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/ admsci14020025 Received: 25 October 2023 Revised: 3 January 2024 Accepted: 16 January 2024 Published: 29 January 2024 Copyright: © 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ 4.0/). administrative sciences Review Inter-Organisational Collaboration Structures and Features to Facilitate Stakeholder Collaboration Pavithra Ganeshu 1,*, Terrence Fernando 1, Marie-Chiristine Therrien 2and Kaushal Keraminiyage 1 1School of Science Engineering and Environment, University of Salford, Salford M5 4WT, UK; [email protected] (T.F.); [email protected] (K.K.) 2Cité-ID Living Lab Governance of Urban Resilience, National School of Public Administration (ENAP), Québec, QC G1K 9E5, Canada; [email protected] *Correspondence: [email protected]d.ac.uk Abstract: Although inter-organisational collaborative structures play a vital role in determining the level of collaboration among organisations, the identification of required organisational structural types and their features to facilitate fruitful collaboration is not satisfactorily discussed in existing studies. In addition, the connection between inter-organisational structural types and features, and their influence on collaboration, is not well understood. This systematised literature review study explores the available inter-organisational collaborative structural types, features, and their suitability to facilitate collaboration among organisations. Our findings underscore the importance of adopting a hybrid form of hierarchy and network arrangements to facilitate effective collaboration among organisations. Furthermore, this study developed a framework that presents how collaboration depends on inter-organisational structures and their features in facilitating vertical and horizontal integration. This framework can be used to identify the inter-organisational collaboration structures that are required to move towards a desired inter-organisational collaboration level. Keywords: inter-organisational collaboration structures; systematised review; governance; collaboration 1. Introduction Over the last decade, the importance of inter-organisational collaboration has been promoted by businesses, policymakers, and researchers since it facilitates organisations to develop strategic responses and to be competitive by going beyond their traditional silo-based approaches (Le Pennec and Raufflet 2018;Nahapiet 2009). This promotion of inter-organisational collaboration is due to the fact that modern organisations are interested in employing various collaboration provisions to proficiently handle their current business operations and venture into novel processes, strategically upholding their competitive standing in the ever-evolving business environment (Prasad et al. 2012). Interorganisational collaboration is embraced as an approach for responding to complex societal challenges or wicked problems such as sustainable urban development, disaster risk management, climate change adaptation, eradicating poverty and homelessness, global pandemics, etc. (Ray-Bennett et al. 2020;United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction 2019;Lagreid and Rykkja 2015). In such a collaborative approach, organisational coordination, as a basic element and the prior stage of collaboration, and communication are vital through governance structures (Xue et al. 2020;Basco-Carrera et al. 2017). As an example, governance structures with hierarchical features and top-down coordination are considered a fundamental hindrance in inter-organisational collaboration, leading to conflicts among stakeholders and eventually to potential failures (Malalgoda et al. 2013;Taylor 2016). Furthermore, the study by Prasad et al. (2012) indicates that organisational structures strongly influence inter-organisational collaboration. Therefore, the governance structures that can facilitate collaboration play a key role in inter-organisational collaboration to solve wicked Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/admsci14020025 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/admsci
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 25 2 of 18 problems in an innovative way (Lagreid and Rykkja 2015). However, existing studies do not adequately address the connections between inter-organisational governance structures and the collaboration level. Hence, there is a need to investigate how the best features of inter-organisational collaborative structures can be combined to support stakeholder collaboration across boundaries, sectors, and administrative levels. Moreover, although existing studies discuss various inter-organisational collaboration arrangements and their effectiveness in specific contexts, they do not provide a general view of suitable inter-organisational collaborative structures and features to enhance collaboration. In addition, the connection between inter-organisational structural types and features and their influence on collaboration is not well established. Therefore, this study intends to answer the research question, “What are the types of inter-organisational governance structures and features necessary to facilitate fruitful collaboration among various stakeholders?”. This study further analyses the findings to understand how these features influence stakeholder collaboration. 2. Research Method A systematised literature review has been selected as the methodology for this study. This method provides a structural approach to make the literature review process transparent as much as possible and thus enhance the quality of the study (Wendler 2012). The search and the selection process adopted in this systemised literature review are presented below (Figure 1). The databases used for the literature survey were Scopus and Web of Science. The research question “What are the suitable inter-organisational collaborative structures to enhance collaboration?” was used to formulate the search terms in this study. The basic search terms captured from the research question were as follows: “formal” and “inter-organisation” and “collaboration” and “structure” and “enhance”. These terms were further expanded using relevant synonyms of the key terms to capture all relevant research papers as follows. (“formal”) AND (“inter-organisational” OR “inter-institutional” OR “Organi$ation*” OR “Institution*” OR “governance”) AND (“Structure*” OR “Arrangement*” OR “Mechanism*” OR “System*” OR “network”) AND (“Stimulat*” OR “enhanc*” OR “Increas*” OR “Improv*” OR “Develop*”) AND (“Collaboration”). Adm.Sci.2024,14,xFORPEERREVIEW2of20 governancestructuresthatcanfacilitatecollaborationplayakeyroleininter-organisationalcollaborationtosolvewickedproblemsinaninnovativeway(LagreidandRykkja 2015).However,existingstudiesdonotadequatelyaddresstheconnectionsbetweeninter-organisationalgovernancestructuresandthecollaborationlevel. Hence,thereisaneedtoinvestigatehowthebestfeaturesofinter-organisationalcollaborativestructurescanbecombinedtosupportstakeholdercollaborationacrossboundaries,sectors,andadministrativelevels.Moreover,althoughexistingstudiesdiscussvariousinter-organisationalcollaborationarrangementsandtheireffectivenessinspecific contexts,theydonotprovideageneralviewofsuitableinter-organisationalcollaborative structuresandfeaturestoenhancecollaboration.Inaddition,theconnectionbetweeninter-organisationalstructuraltypesandfeaturesandtheirinfluenceoncollaborationisnot wellestablished.Therefore,thisstudyintendstoanswertheresearchquestion,“Whatare thetypesofinter-organisationalgovernancestructuresandfeaturesnecessarytofacilitate fruitfulcollaborationamongvariousstakeholders?”.Thisstudyfurtheranalysesthefindingstounderstandhowthesefeaturesinfluencestakeholdercollaboration. 2.ResearchMethod Asystematisedliteraturereviewhasbeenselectedasthemethodologyforthisstudy. Thismethodprovidesastructuralapproachtomaketheliteraturereviewprocesstransparentasmuchaspossibleandthusenhancethequalityofthestudy(Wendler2012).The searchandtheselectionprocessadoptedinthissystemisedliteraturereviewarepresented below(Figure1).ThedatabasesusedfortheliteraturesurveywereScopusandWebof Science.Theresearchquestion“Whatarethesuitableinter-organisationalcollaborative structurestoenhancecollaboration?”wasusedtoformulatethesearchtermsinthisstudy. Thebasicsearchtermscapturedfromtheresearchquestionwereasfollows:“formal”and “inter-organisation”and“collaboration”and“structure”and“enhance”.Theseterms werefurtherexpandedusingrelevantsynonymsofthekeytermstocaptureallrelevant researchpapersasfollows.(“formal”)AND(“inter-organisational”OR“inter-institutional”OR“Organi$ation*”OR“Institution*”OR“governance”)AND(“Structure*”OR “Arrangement*”OR“Mechanism*”OR“System*”OR“network”)AND(“Stimulat*”OR “enhanc*”OR“Increas*”OR“Improv*”OR“Develop*”)AND(“Collaboration”). Figure1.Screeningprocessofselectedliteraturesources. Figure 1. Screening process of selected literature sources.
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 25 3 of 18 Selection Criteria and Process The literature sources captured from the key terms were filtered out using the following exclusion criteria: (a) articles that were not in the English language; (b) articles published before the year 2010 to avoid too many articles and to focus on recent articles that are based on modern organisational theories. The selection criteria resulted in a thousand and three articles; however, eight hundred and seventy articles were considered for further analysis after removing any duplications. After reviewing the titles and abstracts, only three hundred and fifty-four articles relevant to inter-organisational collaborative arrangements or structures were chosen for further analysis. After a full-text screening, only thirtythree articles were selected since the other articles did not meaningfully discuss the type or features of inter-organisational collaborative structures or governance arrangements. Furthermore, four articles found through a reference search were added, making the total number of articles thirty-seven. This process is summarised in Figure 1. The selected articles were studied and synthesised to understand the type of interorganisational collaboration structures and the adequate features required in the interorganisational structure to facilitate better collaboration using the thematic analysis method, which supports researchers in identifying repeated patterns and themes with respect to the research question (Alhojailan 2012;Roslan et al. 2021). The findings are discussed in the following sections. This study identified three major types of inter-organisational collaborative structures (see Section 3.1) and the main features of governance arrangements (Section 3.2) to support collaboration, as discussed below. 3. Research Findings This study identified three major types of inter-organisational collaborative structures (see Section 3.1) and the main features of governance arrangements (Section 3.2) to support collaboration, as discussed below. 3.1. Types of Inter-Organisational Collaboration Structures Organisational theories mostly focus on three ideal types of organisational structures, each relying on a particular form of governance to coordinate activities. These structures were found to be hierarchical (relies on authority and centralised control), market (relies on prices and dispersed competition), and network (relies on trust across a web of association) (Bevir 2012). As shown in Figure 2, organisational governing structures that provide coordination among actors in various forms with their own features can be placed on a spectrum. Adm.Sci.2024,14,xFORPEERREVIEW3of20 SelectionCriteriaandProcess Theliteraturesourcescapturedfromthekeytermswerefilteredoutusingthefollowingexclusioncriteria:(a)articlesthatwerenotintheEnglishlanguage;(b)articles publishedbeforetheyear2010toavoidtoomanyarticlesandtofocusonrecentarticles thatarebasedonmodernorganisationaltheories.Theselectioncriteriaresultedinathousandandthreearticles;however,eighthundredandseventyarticleswereconsideredfor furtheranalysisafterremovinganyduplications.Afterreviewingthetitlesandabstracts, onlythreehundredandfifty-fourarticlesrelevanttointer-organisationalcollaborativearrangementsorstructureswerechosenforfurtheranalysis.Afterafull-textscreening,only thirty-threearticleswereselectedsincetheotherarticlesdidnotmeaningfullydiscussthe typeorfeaturesofinter-organisationalcollaborativestructuresorgovernancearrangements.Furthermore,fourarticlesfoundthroughareferencesearchwereadded,making thetotalnumberofarticlesthirty-seven.ThisprocessissummarisedinFigure1. Theselectedarticleswerestudiedandsynthesisedtounderstandthetypeofinterorganisationalcollaborationstructuresandtheadequatefeaturesrequiredintheinterorganisationalstructuretofacilitatebettercollaborationusingthethematicanalysis method,whichsupportsresearchersinidentifyingrepeatedpatternsandthemeswithrespecttotheresearchquestion(Alhojailan2012;Roslanetal.2021).Thefindingsarediscussedinthefollowingsections.Thisstudyidentifiedthreemajortypesofinter-organisationalcollaborativestructures(seeSection3.1)andthemainfeaturesofgovernancearrangements(Section3.2)tosupportcollaboration,asdiscussedbelow. 3.ResearchFindings Thisstudyidentifiedthreemajortypesofinter-organisationalcollaborativestructures(seeSection3.1)andthemainfeaturesofgovernancearrangements(Section3.2)to supportcollaboration,asdiscussedbelow. 3.1.TypesofInter-OrganisationalCollaborationStructures Organisationaltheoriesmostlyfocusonthreeidealtypesoforganisationalstructures,eachrelyingonaparticularformofgovernancetocoordinateactivities.Thesestructureswerefoundtobehierarchical(reliesonauthorityandcentralisedcontrol),market (reliesonpricesanddispersedcompetition),andnetwork(reliesontrustacrossawebof association)(Bevir2012).AsshowninFigure2,organisationalgoverningstructuresthat providecoordinationamongactorsinvariousformswiththeirownfeaturescanbeplaced onaspectrum. Figure2.Spectrumofprimaryorganisationalgoverningstructures:AdoptedfromBevir(2012). Figure 2. Spectrum of primary organisational governing structures: Adopted from Bevir (2012).
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 25 4 of 18 Hierarchical structures lead to strong line ministries with well-established vertical coordination and weak horizontal coordination. Such vertical coordination produces fragmented departments (departmentalism), tunnel vision, and vertical silos, creating insufficient horizontal coordination; therefore, hierarchical structures tend to experience challenges in horizontal coordination (Lagreid and Rykkja 2015). The key characteristics of the hierarchical governance model are accountability, formal or bureaucratic features, dependent or authoritative relationships, information deficit, and vague and inconsistent objectives (Sorensen and Gudmundsson 2010). The market structure, on the other hand, is an abstract idea of an ideal marketplace where prices and competition take place. Here, coordination occurs for the exchange of goods, and actors are isolated and largely independent. As a result, social bonds and trust are relatively low in the market structure. Unlike hierarchy, the market structure provides a degree of coordination without guidance, and here, the competition drives the innovations. Therefore, the market structure is unsuitable for governance where competition is absent (Bevir 2012). Bevir (2012) further argued that hierarchy and market are two ends of the spectrum, and all other hybrid forms of organisational structures fall somewhere in between. Organisational theorists focus on hybrid forms to overcome the limitations of both the hierarchy and the market. As a result, as an example, the network has emerged as a third main form of organisational structure (Bevir 2012). Networks are considered more suitable for solving complex problems, ensuring commitments, and establishing shared identity among the actors in collaboration (Khayatzadeh-Mahani et al. 2019;Paulsson et al. 2018;Rondelez 2018; Van Dijk and Winters-Van Beek 2009). Therefore, networks are established to enhance vertical and horizontal collaboration (Lagreid and Rykkja 2015;Paulsson et al. 2018;Sorensen and Gudmundsson 2010) and are suggested as an ideal form of governance for solving complex problems collaboratively. Networks are formed with a high level of trust among actors, and actors are interdependent instead of being under central control, thus having the freedom to experiment and innovate (Bevir 2012;Klijn and Koppenjan 2016). However, the effectiveness and performance of network governance are still questionable (Rondelez 2018) due to the lack of accountability (Sorensen and Gudmundsson 2010), hence requiring proper network management. As a result, two styles of network governance management have emerged, shared and brokered, to ensure the effectiveness of collaboration. With these two management styles, three types of network governing structures are evident in the literature: (1) Self-governance network, which does not have any formal entity to drive network members from the top. Here, the shared responsibility can be taken up by members, each taking on specific responsibilities; therefore, this structure heavily depends on the participation of members; (2) lead organisation-governed networks that refer to a centralised form of network governance with one leading entity. Generally, this leading entity can be one of the collaborative members who offer a greater contribution financially or politically; and (3) network administrative organisation (NAO)-governed networks, where an external organisation that is not a network member leads the network. This external leader is often a government or a non-profit organisation (Provan and Kenis 2008;Rondelez 2018). However, Bevir (2012) argued that even though there is an agency to monitor and coordinate the network, other actors in the network will still try to manage it in some form. In essence, in terms of managing large-scale collaborative members, decentralised networks that enable self-governance face difficulties; as more people get involved, there are more opportunities for misunderstandings, and it becomes more challenging to achieve consensus without any centralised control (Brafman and Beckstrom 2006). Therefore, it can be argued that lead organisation-governed networks and network administrative organisation (NAO)-governed networks are more suitable for managing large-scale collaborative arrangements due to their centralised features (Provan and Kenis 2008).
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 25 5 of 18 3.2. Key Features of Inter-Organisational Collaboration Structures This section analyses the important characteristics of governance structures to support and facilitate multi-dimensional stakeholder collaboration. 3.2.1. Vertical and Horizontal Integration Both vertical and horizontal interconnection and links are essential for healthy stakeholder collaboration. Whilst vertical collaboration links together different administrative levels of governance in the government or non-government organisations such as national, regions, zones, provinces, districts, and municipalities, horizontal collaboration integrates different sectors and organisations. Therefore, this vertical and horizontal integration can be considered as two fundamental dimensions of collaboration. Vertical integration refers to the act of creating alignment and coordination across different governance levels, leveraging each respective level’s potential through collective efforts and promoting top-down and bottom-up information exchanges (C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group 2020). For example, the bottom-up approach of city initiatives will influence national action, and the top-down approach of country-level frameworks will influence local actions. Here, the optimum outcome is more likely to be achieved through a balanced combination of both approaches (C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group 2020). However, the extent of vertical integration might differ from country to country based on their governance context. Jiren et al. (2018) argued that effective vertical integration should connect all different governance levels rather than just interacting with others at the same level or the level immediately above or below. It is evident that vertical integration in inter-organisational structures varies depending on the level of interaction across the levels. A study by Dobre et al. (2018) argued that verticality or the hierarchical attributes of governance can be analysed based on the centralised or decentralised features of the governance arrangement. The centralised process shows the hierarchical attributes of a governance structure, and the decentralised process shows the flattened attributes of a governance structure. For example, even though the network structure is meant to be flattened, if the ownership of the central authority prevails, the network will not be fully flattened, hence displaying centralised and hierarchical structural features (Faul 2016). Faul (2016) opined that flattened network structures, which provide equal powers among stakeholders, are essential for effective collaboration in order to avoid some actors having centralised powers and thus enjoying the benefits of hierarchical structures in inter-organisational collaboration. Jiren et al. (2018) supported this view and argued that although centrality helps integrate diverse sectors, it is associated with several disadvantages such as power abuse, centralised decision-making, and the withholding of essential information. The dominance of powerful actors could overrule other stakeholders and, therefore, collaboration among stakeholders can be affected due to the breakdown in trust. Therefore, there is a belief among researchers that the centrality feature in a collaborative network is not suitable for effective collaboration, as opposed to a decentralised co-management governance system, which is much more favourable for stakeholder collaboration since it offers a power balance and a combination of top-down and bottom-up approaches (Petursson et al. 2016). However, it is important to note that, as stated earlier, this pure decentralised approach is only suitable for a small number of collaborative members, for example, a self-governance network, and is not suitable for large collaborative arrangements that require suitable governance mechanisms to control a network that creates centrality. Accordingly, this study argues that vertical integration is possible in structural types in which hierarchical or centralised features can be seen, for example, hierarchy, lead organisation-governed networks, and network administrative organisation (NAO)-governed networks. Similarly, the concept of vertical integration or verticality will not take place in structures in which pure decentralisation can be seen, for example, self-governance network structures. Horizontal integration involves connections between government ministries and sectoral departments, sometimes including external stakeholders such as academia, business
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 25 6 of 18 and industry, non-profit organisations, and citizen groups (C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group 2020). This horizontal integration supports cross-boundary and cross-sector collaboration and increases heterogeneity in the collaboration network to enhance innovation. 3.2.2. Leadership Although leadership is considered essential for stakeholder collaboration, a lack of leadership is identified as a critical barrier to stakeholder collaboration (Uittenbroek et al. 2014). This leadership can take different forms, such as key actor leadership (Rouillard and Spray 2017), which can be seen in lead organisation-governed networks (Provan and Kenis 2008;Rondelez 2018), boundary-spanning organisational leadership (Dow et al. 2013), steering committee (Gilfillan et al. 2017), or an external entity such as a network administrative organisation (NAO) (Provan and Kenis 2008;Rondelez 2018). Among these leadership modes, NAO and steering committee leadership are identified as successful inter-organisational collaboration leadership arrangements (Gilfillan et al. 2017;Lagreid and Rykkja 2015) since they facilitate equity and power sharing among the stakeholders. 3.2.3. Need for Boundary-Spanning Network Behaviour and Bridging Organisations A boundary organisation, which is also known as a bridging organisation or an intermediate organisation, is essential, as local trusted intermediaries in collaborative arrangements, to overcome institutional gaps and enhance collaboration (Rahman et al. 2017;Rouillard and Spray 2017). Moreover, because this boundary-spanning structure provides formal and intensive coordination across organisational boundaries (Lee et al. 2010), it is important to have a dedicated inter-organisational collaboration structure with boundary-spanning organisations to handle formal agreements, initiate collaboration, perform intermediary functions, manage relationships with stakeholders, and promote effective collaborations (Lee 2014). Boundary spanners contribute to effective decision-making policies and adaptation policies to achieve sustainable outcomes (Bowen et al. 2014). The primary responsibility of boundary organisations is to link organisations (across jurisdictions or boundaries), donor agencies, academics, policymakers, communities, and other actors vertically and horizontally as a network in integrated decision-making (Armitage et al. 2015;Huitema and Turnhout 2009). For example, NGOs are often identified as boundary-spanning organisations that fill the gap between stakeholders, community, and local actors (Farooqi 2016). For the effective function of boundary organisations, they require skills, experience, and the involvement of higher and lower levels of governance (Armitage et al. 2015;Huitema and Turnhout 2009). Boundary spanners need to be specialised to cope with various boundary needs and collaboration forms to perform the additional bridging and brokering activities necessary to span across closed clusters and fill in the structural holes in inter-organisational collaboration (Edelenbos and van Meerkerk 2015). Moreover, leadership, one of the main features discussed in Section 3.2.3, can be seen as an important function of these boundary organisations. These bridging organisations can be inter-agency leadership teams that have representatives from different sectors that can bring multiple agencies together (Dow et al. 2013). Trust and boundary-spanning leadership are considered essential in stakeholder collaboration to stimulate and consolidate coordination and interaction between different actors. 3.2.4. Heterogeneity According to scholars, the heterogeneity of collaborative actors facilitates the sharing of various knowledge, resources, and information and inter-organisational learning that can lead to innovative solutions (Powell and Grodal 2006). In contrast, homophily in networks limits the innovative ability of such networks due to the existence of similar knowledge, information, resources, and uniform ideas (Bodin and Crona 2009;Newman and Dale 2005). Therefore, encouraging and establishing heterogeneity in a collaborative network facilitates innovation and experiments that assist in answering complex problems (Hölscher et al.
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 25 7 of 18 2019). To support this, Therrien et al. (2019) argued that having peripheral organisations with enough distance and thematic sub-groups in a collaborative network that can be coordinated through boundary organisations is essential to avoid the homogenisation of ideas. Therefore, collaboration across different sectors, actors, and different administrative boundaries can boost heterogeneity in collaboration. 4. Analysis and Discussion In essence, inter-organisational collaboration can be covered by two dimensions: vertical integration and horizontal integration. Vertical integration is essential for cross-level collaboration, and horizontal integration is essential for the cross-sector and cross-boundary collaboration that can be seen among different administrative boundaries. Therefore, vertical and horizontal integration are the main variables supporting inter-organisational collaboration. The vertical integration concept is applicable in structural arrangements where only verticality or centrality prevails. Therefore, vertical interaction is not applicable in flat networks and isolated organisations where centrality is absent. Vertical coordination can be seen among hierarchical structures that facilitate top-down or bottom-up coordination, which is considered in this analysis to be a “one-way interaction”. However, this is seen as low vertical integration since the proper combination of top-down and bottom-up coordination can lead to an optimum vertical integration that supports balanced top-down and bottom-up approaches in decision-making (C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group 2020). Hierarchical structures can also facilitate balanced top-down and bottom-up approaches with intermediate-level interaction in the hierarchy, and this study calls this feature a “twoway interaction”. On top of all the structural features, if the direct interaction among various administrative levels in the hierarchy facilitates a hierarchical structure, this study calls this feature a “unified vertical integration” —this feature can be seen in heterarchy structures (Cumming 2016)—which promotes high vertical integration according to the argument of Jiren et al. (2018), who stated that effective vertical integration should connect all the administrative levels within governance rather than interacting with the levels just above and below immediate administrative levels. Additionally, where the vertical connection among all administrative levels is absent, the availability of boundary organisations to create vertical connections can also be considered an important factor in strengthening vertical integration since boundary organisations can fulfil this requirement by connecting different administrative levels. However, this study argues that the vertical integration level in this structural arrangement is equal to the two-way hierarchy structural vertical integration level since both facilitate indirect interaction among different levels in the hierarchical structure. Vertical integration varies from low to high based on the type of organisational structure, as shown in Figure 3. The horizontal integration variables depend on the horizontal connections between different sectors, different actors, and different administrative boundaries. Boundary organisations play an important role in helping to connect different types of organisations across sectors and boundaries. Therefore, the availability of boundary organisations is important in facilitating horizontal integration where direct connections are not available. The heterogeneity of organisations in collaboration is seen as a crucial factor in bringing innovative solutions to solve complex problems through collaboration. Collaboration across different sectors, actors, and different administrative boundaries can boost heterogeneity in collaboration. Therefore, the high heterogeneity of collaborative organisations can be seen as a vital indicator of a successful high level of horizontal integration. The heterogeneity of a governance arrangement can be boosted by keeping thematic subgroups in an interorganisational collaborative arrangement rather than having similar types of organisations within a collaborative group (Therrien et al. 2019). In general, silo-based organisational arrangements lack horizontal integration (Scott and Gong 2021) and, in contrast, a networked organisational arrangement facilitates horizontal integration by coordinating with various sectors and, additionally, with sectors across boundaries. Therefore, this study concludes
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 25 8 of 18 that the “silo” term represents no/low horizontal integration and the “networked” term represents high horizontal integration. Adm.Sci.2024,14,xFORPEERREVIEW8of20 Figure3.Frameworktodeterminethecollaborationlevelsbasedonthestructuralfeatures. Thehorizontalintegrationvariablesdependonthehorizontalconnectionsbetween differentsectors,differentactors,anddifferentadministrativeboundaries.Boundaryorganisationsplayanimportantroleinhelpingtoconnectdifferenttypesoforganisations acrosssectorsandboundaries.Therefore,theavailabilityofboundaryorganisationsisimportantinfacilitatinghorizontalintegrationwheredirectconnectionsarenotavailable. Theheterogeneityoforganisationsincollaborationisseenasacrucialfactorinbringing Figure 3. Framework to determine the collaboration levels based on the structural features. The leadership feature is not discussed separately under each integration criterion since leadership can be seen as a common factor in increasing vertical and horizontal integration in governance arrangements. However, it is important to note that, as an exception in collaborative arrangements, the self-governance network does not have any leadership within it. Figure 3presents a framework that captures the vertical and horizontal integration characteristics of an organisational structure based on identified structural features that
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 25 15 of 18 Adm.Sci.2024,14,xFORPEERREVIEW16of20 availableforeachstudycase.Theexplanationoftherationalefortheplacementofthe casesinaparticularquadrantisdiscussedbelow. Figure8.VI/HIchart. Theanalysisoftheabovethreecasestudieshasallowedtheresearcherstodemonstratetheuseoftheproposedframework(Figure3)todeterminecollaborationlevels basedonthestructuralfeaturesofanorganisationandtounderstandhowvariousorganisationalstructuresareusedinareal-worldcontexttoachievedifferentlevelsofcollaboration. Theanalysisofthestructuralcharacteristicsofcase1ismuchinlinewiththecharacteristicsofsegment3oftheframeworkpresentedinFigure3.Asaresult,weakhorizontal andverticalcollaborationwasexpected,whichwasconfirmedbyindependentresearch carriedoutbyGilfillanetal.(2017).Similarly,case2displaysthecharacteristicsidentified insegment6oftheframeworkpresentedinFigure3.Asaresult,stronghorizontaland verticalcollaborationwasexpected,whichwasconfirmedbytheindependentresearch carriedoutbyBowenetal.(2014).Furthermore,case3wasplacedinsegment4sinceit hadahierarchywithasupplementarynetworkwithweakverticalintegration.Therefore, amediumlevelofcollaborationwasexpected,whichwasconfirmedbytheindependent researchcarriedoutbyLagreidandRykkja(2015). Figure 8. VI/HI chart. The analysis of the above three case studies has allowed the researchers to demonstrate the use of the proposed framework (Figure 3) to determine collaboration levels based on the structural features of an organisation and to understand how various organisational structures are used in a real-world context to achieve different levels of collaboration. The analysis of the structural characteristics of case 1 is much in line with the characteristics of segment 3 of the framework presented in Figure 3. As a result, weak horizontal and vertical collaboration was expected, which was confirmed by independent research carried out by Gilfillan et al. (2017). Similarly, case 2 displays the characteristics identified in segment 6 of the framework presented in Figure 3. As a result, strong horizontal and vertical collaboration was expected, which was confirmed by the independent research carried out by Bowen et al. (2014). Furthermore, case 3 was placed in segment 4 since it had a hierarchy with a supplementary network with weak vertical integration. Therefore, a medium level of collaboration was expected, which was confirmed by the independent research carried out by Lagreid and Rykkja (2015). The case study analysis confirmed that hierarchical governance arrangements generally hinder horizontal integration and are, therefore, unsuitable for cross-sectoral, crossadministrative boundary collaborations. The pure decentralised network arrangement is not suitable for the situations in which centrality takes place. Furthermore, if it is a pure decentralised network with equal power, the administration or governance of the network is questionable (Rondelez 2018). Therefore, the hybrid forms of hierarchy and network
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 25 16 of 18 governance arrangements are suitable for facilitating high collaboration since they are capable of allowing high vertical and horizontal integration among multiple actors with high heterogeneity. Nevertheless, according to studies by Gilfillan et al. (2017), KhayatzadehMahani et al. (2019), and Lagreid and Rykkja (2015), countries that follow bureaucratic cultures can adopt hierarchical and supplementary network governance arrangements for collaboration purposes since these structural forms allow vertical management and horizontal collaboration to a certain extent. Furthermore, the heterarchy structural type is ideal and facilitates collaboration at an optimum level. 6. Conclusions This study found hierarchy, network, and hybrid forms of hierarchy and network are the key structural arrangements that are commonly adopted for inter-organisational collaboration as they facilitate vertical coordination or horizontal coordination or both vertical and horizontal coordination. However, this study found that the hybrid forms of hierarchy and networks are suitable for facilitating both vertical and horizontal collaboration directly or indirectly. In addition, this study’s findings underscore that countries with a deeply rooted bureaucratic culture can potentially adopt hybrid governance to overcome barriers in hierarchical governance structures and meet their cross-level and cross-boundary collaborative needs at a satisfactory level. By analysing the characteristics of various inter-organisational structures, this study proposes a framework that presents how the inter-organisational governance structures determine vertical and horizontal integration, which reflects on the effectiveness of the overall collaboration. Hence, this study provides a roadmap to move to the desired level of collaboration by implementing the required structural features. It is hoped that future researchers can utilise this framework to analyse and propose suitable governance structures for different application contexts. It is essential to note that these findings are limited to the literature sources selected based on the selection criteria of the study, and the case study evaluation was based on the data availability within the respective studies. However, despite this limitation, this study structured and presented a basic understanding of the suitable types of inter-organisational governance structures and the adequate features required to strengthen collaboration. Moreover, these findings contribute to theory and practice for assessing the adequacy of an inter-organisational collaborative structure to facilitate effective collaboration. Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, P.G.; methodology, P.G.; writing—original draft preparation, P.G.; writing—review and editing, T.F., P.G., M.-C.T. and K.K.; visualisation, P.G., T.F., M.-C.T. and K.K.; supervision, T.F., M.-C.T. and K.K.; funding acquisition, T.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript. Funding: This research was funded by the Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) and the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC), grant number ES/T003219/1, entitled “Technology Enhanced Stakeholder Collaboration for Supporting Risk-Sensitive Sustainable Urban Development”. Institutional Review Board Statement: The study was conducted under the University of Salford’s ethics code requirements and the UK Research Registry Office regulations for studies involving humans and was approved by the Science and Technology Research Ethics Panel of the University of Salford with application ID 3154 and date of approval: 1 October 2021. Informed Consent Statement: As this study involves a literature review, an informed consent statement is not applicable. Data Availability Statement: No new data were generated or analysed during this study. Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 25 17 of 18 References Alhojailan, Mohammed Ibrahim. 2012. Thematic analysis: A critical review of its process and evaluation. Paper presented at WEI International European Academic Conference Proceedings, Zagreb, Croatia, October 14–17. Armitage, Derek, Rob C. de Loë, Michelle Morris, Tom W. D. Edwards, Andrea K. Gerlak, Roland I. Hall, Dave Huitema, Ray Ison, David Livingstone, Glen MacDonald, and et al. 2015. Science–policy processes for transboundary water governance. Ambio 44: 353–66. [CrossRef] Basco-Carrera, Laura, Andrew Warren, Eelco van Beek, Andreja Jonoski, and Alessio Giardino. 2017. Collaborative modelling or participatory modelling? A framework for water resources management. Environmental Modelling & Software 91: 95–110. Bevir, Mark. 2012. Governance: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [CrossRef] Bodin, Örjan, and Beatrice I. Crona. 2009. The role of social networks in natural resource governance: What relational patterns make a difference? Global Environmental Change 19: 366–74. [CrossRef] Borgatti, Stephen P., Ajay Mehra, Daniel J. Brass, and Giuseppe Labianca. 2009. Network analysis in the social sciences. Science 323: 892–95. [CrossRef] Bowen, Kathryn J., Damon Alexander, Fiona Miller, and Va Dany. 2014. Using social network analysis to evaluate health-related adaptation decision-making in Cambodia. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 11: 1605–25. [CrossRef] [PubMed] Brafman, Ori, and Rod A. Beckstrom. 2006. The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations. London: Penguin. ISBN 1-59184-143-7. C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group. 2020. Climate Action Planning Vertical Integration Guide. Available online: https:// www.c40knowledgehub.org/s/article/Climate-Action-Planning-Vertical-Integration-Guide?language=en_US (accessed on 14 October 2022). Cumming, Graeme S. 2016. Heterarchies: Reconciling networks and hierarchies. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 31: 622–32. Dobre, Catalina Codruta, Joanne Vinke-de Kruijf, Luisa Moretto, and Marco Ranzato. 2018. Stormwater management in transition: The influence of technical and governance attributes in the case of Brussels, Belgium. Environmental Science & Policy 85: 1–10. [CrossRef] Dow, Kirstin, Benjamin K. Haywood, Nathan P. Kettle, and Kirsten Lackstrom. 2013. The role of ad hoc networks in supporting climate change adaptation: A case study from the Southeastern United States. Regional Environmental Change 13: 1235–44. [CrossRef] Edelenbos, Jurian, and Ingmar van Meerkerk. 2015. Connective capacity in water governance practices: The meaning of trust and boundary spanning for integrated performance. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 12: 25–29. [CrossRef] Farooqi, Seemab Ara. 2016. Co-production: What makes co-production work? Evidence from Pakistan. International Journal of Public Sector Management 29: 381–95. [CrossRef] Faul, Moira V. 2016. Networks and power: Why networks are hierarchical not flat and what can be done about it. Global Policy 7: 185–97. [CrossRef] Gilfillan, Daniel, Thu T. Nguyen, and Ha T. Pham. 2017. Coordination and health sector adaptation to climate change in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. Ecology and Society 22: 14. [CrossRef] Hölscher, Katharina, Niki Frantzeskaki, and Derk Loorbach. 2019. Steering transformations under climate change: Capacities for transformative climate governance and the case of Rotterdam, the Netherlands. Regional Environmental Change 19: 791–95. [CrossRef] Huitema, Dave, and Esther Turnhout. 2009. Working on the boundary between science and policy. A discursive analysis of boundary work at the Netherlands Environment Agency. Environmental Politics 18: 576–94. [CrossRef] Jiren, Tolera Senbeto, Arvid Bergsten, Ine Dorresteijn, Neil French Collier, Julia Leventon, and Joern Fischer. 2018. Integrating food security and biodiversity governance: A multi-level social network analysis in Ethiopia. Land Use Policy 78: 420–29. [CrossRef] Khayatzadeh-Mahani, Akram, Arne Ruckert, Ronald Labonté, Patrick Kenis, and Mohammad Reza Akbari-Javar. 2019. Health in all policies (HiAP) governance: Lessons from network governance. Health Promotion International 34: 779–91. [CrossRef] Klijn, Erik Hans, and Joop Koppenjan. 2016. The 11 shift toward network governance. Theory and Practice of Public Sector Reform 27: 158. Lagreid, Per, and Lise H. Rykkja. 2015. Organising for “wicked problems”—Analysing coordination arrangements in two policy areas Internal security and the welfare administration. International Journal of Public Sector Management 28: 475–93. [CrossRef] Le Pennec, Morgane, and Emmanuel Raufflet. 2018. Value creation in inter-organizational collaboration: An empirical study. Journal of Business Ethics 148: 817–34. [CrossRef] Lee, Kyoung-Joo, Tomohiro Ohta, and Kazuhiko Kakehi. 2010. Formal boundary spanning by industry liaison offices and the changing pattern of university-industry cooperative research: The case of the University of Tokyo. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management 22: 189–206. [CrossRef] Lee, Kyoung-Joo. 2014. Development of boundary-spanning organisations in Japanese universities for different types of university– industry collaborations: A resource dependence perspective. Asian Journal of Technology Innovation 22: 204–18. [CrossRef] Malalgoda, Chamindi, Dilanthi Amaratunga, and Richard Haigh. 2013. Creating a disaster resilient built environment in urban cities: The role of local governments in Sri Lanka. International Journal of Disaster Resilience in the Built Environment 4: 72–94. [CrossRef] Nahapiet, Janine. 2009. The Role of Social Capital in Inter-organizational Relationships. In The Oxford Handbook of Inter-Organizational Relations. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 580–606. [CrossRef]
Adm. Sci. 2024,14, 25 18 of 18 Newman, Lenore, and Ann Dale. 2005. Network structure, diversity, and proactive resilience building: A response to Tompkins and Adger. Ecology and Society 10: r2. [CrossRef] Paulsson, Alexander, Karolina Isaksson, Claus Hedegaard Sørensen, Robert Hrelja, Tom Rye, and Christina Scholten. 2018. Collaboration in public transport planning—Why, how and what? Research in Transportation Economics 69: 377–85. [CrossRef] Petursson, Jon Geir, Gudridur Thorvardardottir, and Roger Crofts. 2016. Developing iceland’s protected areas: Taking stock and looking ahead. Parks 22: 13–24. [CrossRef] Powell, Walter W., and Stine Grodal. 2006. Networks of Innovators. Oxford: Oxford University Press. [CrossRef] Prasad, Acklesh, Peter Green, and Jon Heales. 2012. On IT governance structures and their effectiveness in collaborative organizational structures. International Journal of Accounting Information Systems 13: 199–220. [CrossRef] Provan, Keith G., and Patrick Kenis. 2008. Modes of network governance: Structure, management, and effectiveness. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 18: 229–52. [CrossRef] Rahman, H. M. Tuihedur, Arlette S. Saint Ville, Andrew M. Song, June Y. T. Po, Elsa Berthet, Jeremy R. Brammer, Nicolas D. Brunet, Lingaraj G. Jayaprakash, Kristen N. Lowitt, Archi Rastogi, and et al. 2017. A framework for analysing institutional gaps in natural resource governance. International Journal of the Commons 11: 823–53. [CrossRef] Ray-Bennett, Nibedita, Daniel Mendez, Edris Alam, and Christian Morgner. 2020. Inter-agency collaboration for natural hazard management in developed countries. Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Natural Hazard Science. Available online: https: //oxfordre.com/naturalhazardscience/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199389407.001.0001/acrefore-9780199389407-e-176 (accessed on 10 October 2022). Rondelez, Rafael. 2018. Governing cyber security through networks: An analysis of cyber security coordination in Belgium. International Journal of Cyber Criminology 12: 300–15. [CrossRef] Roslan, Ahmad Farhan, Terrence Fernando, Sara Biscaya, and Noralfishah Sulaiman. 2021. Transformation towards risk-sensitive urban development: A systematic review of the issues and challenges. Sustainability 13: 10631. [CrossRef] Rouillard, Josselin J., and Christopher J. Spray. 2017. Working across scales in integrated catchment management: Lessons learned for adaptive water governance from regional experiences. Regional Environmental Change 17: 1869–80. [CrossRef] Scott, Ian, and Ting Gong. 2021. Coordinating government silos: Challenges and opportunities. GPPG 1: 20–38. [CrossRef] Sorensen, Claus Hedegaard, and Henrik Gudmundsson. 2010. The impact of governance modes on sustainable transport–the case of bus transport in Greater Manchester, UK. World Review of Intermodal Transportation Research 3: 8–25. [CrossRef] Stephenson, Karen. 2009. Neither hierarchy nor network: An argument for heterarchy. People and Strategy 32: 4. Taylor, Anna. 2016. Institutional inertia in a changing climate: Climate adaptation planning in Cape Town, South Africa. International Journal of Climate Change Strategies and Management 8: 194–211. [CrossRef] Therrien, Marie-Christine, Mathilde Jutras, and Susan Usher. 2019. Including quality in Social network analysis to foster dialogue in urban resilience and adaptation policies. Environmental Science & Policy 93: 1–10. [CrossRef] Uittenbroek, Caroline J., Leonie B. Janssen-Jansen, Tejo J. M. Spit, and Hens A. C. Runhaar. 2014. Organisational values and the implications for mainstreaming climate adaptation in Dutch municipalities: Using Q methodology. Journal of Water and Climate Change 5: 443–56. [CrossRef] United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. 2019. Global Assessment Report on Disaster Risk Reduction. Available online: https://gar.undrr.org/index.html (accessed on 14 October 2022). Van Dijk, J., and A. Winters-Van Beek. 2009. The perspective of network government. The struggle between hierarchies, markets and networks as modes of governance in contemporary government. ICTs, Citizens & Governance: After the Hype 14: 235–55. Wendler, Roy. 2012. The maturity of maturity model research: A systematic mapping study. Information and Software Technology 54: 1317–39. [CrossRef] Wilson, Edward O., and Bert Hölldobler. 1988. Dense heterarchies and mass communication as the basis of organization in ant colonies. Trends in Ecology & Evolution 3: 65–68. Xue, Jin, Geoffrey Qiping Shen, Rebecca Jing Yang, Irfan Zafar, E.M.A.C. Ekanayake, Xue Lin, and Amos Darko. 2020. Influence of formal and informal stakeholder relationship on megaproject performance: A case of China. Engineering Construction and Architectural Management 27: 1505–31. [CrossRef] Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.