High-Performance Partnerships - National Academy of Public ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ORGANIZATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE chapter nine FIGURE 9-1 GOVERNANCE APPROACHES Investors vs. Stakeholder Model Decision-Makers Structure Operating Style Bias Works Best Investor Limited to those who contribute "Board of Directors" Plan & implement simultaneously Action When quick decisive action is required All Stakeholders Open to all who are interested Coalition Plan until all interests are addressed Consensus building When seeking to develop a broad-base of support to establish a need to act A broad governance structure that engages customers and community representatives may improve buy-in at the expense of operations efficiency. This approach generally is more time-consuming, but advantageous in dynamic situations and environments where consensus is required for success. The downside is that decision-making can be cumbersome and slow. Key partners, especially those used to the bottom line, can become frustrated with the process and decline to participate. Partnership governance also may be co-opted by parochial agendas. The Strategy The goal of a high-performance partnership should be to convert stakeholders into investors. This way, all parties contribute something to the partnership’s success. No stakeholder is merely a beneficiary. Rather, it has contributed something of value. When stakeholders are investors, the governance structure may be simplified because parties have a more comprehensive understanding of the components and resources. A single decision-making group or steering committee may be sufficient to address a partnership’s inherent interests. A differential governance structure probably will be more effective for a partnership that has some stakeholders that are not yet investors. The structure could follow several models. First, non-investor stakeholders could be assigned different powers. Or, they could be allocated fewer members or votes. A second approach involves a two-tiered governance structure. Tier one is composed of an array of stakeholders, including investors, customers, and community representatives. This group provides general guidance and feedback on the partnership’s goals and activities. It also can serve as a conduit for important stakeholder-partnership communications. Tier two has a smaller group of decision-makers: key investors. This body governs the partnership, allocates resources, and is accountable for performance. The larger stakeholder group must trust the smaller decision-making body for the tier two structure to be effective. No one approach is perfect for every situation. Each governance model has attributes that are conducive to different circumstances. The governance roles for the investors and beneficiaries may depend on the maturity of the part- 114 Powering the Future: High-Performance Partnerships
Neighborhoods in Bloom operates in six areas. A partnership board, comprised of representatives of the civic association, nonprofit housing providers working in the neighborhood, and the City of Richmond, governs activities in each neighborhood. Each executed a memorandum of understanding that articulates each partner’s activities, spending and expected outcomes (see Appendix F). nership, legal constraints, and political realities. For instance, a partnership may need to engage many customers and community representatives during the design phase to obtain information and buy-in. Once underway, funders and technical experts may acquire greater decision-making responsibilities. The partnership must be aware of investor and customer needs and sensitive to the structure to achieve high performance. Regardless of the approach, the organizational infrastructure for a successful partnership has several universal characteristics: • There must be a cheerleader and champion within the leadership. • The structure must be manageable—small enough to exercise quick, decisive decisionmaking, yet broad enough to obtain the support and resources to get the job done. • All stakeholders should know how to access the partnership’s decision-making structure and what to expect from it. “MCCP’s placement in the Fairfax County Executive’s office is a critical factor in its success and longevity.” Sandra Lowe, Medical Care for Children Partnership (Fairfax) FIGURE 9-2 CONVERTING STAKEHOLDERS TO INVESTORS Goal: "Everyone Becomes an Investor and a Stakeholder" Stakeholder Model Investor Model High-Performance Partnership $ $ $ Time Talent Treasure Source: Sandra Lowe and Terry LaVoie, Medical Care for Children Partnership (Fairfax) and Kenneth Barbeau, Lapham Park Venture (Milwaukee) 115 Powering the Future: High-Performance Partnerships
Page 1 and 2:
Powering the FUTURE: High-Performan
Page 3 and 4:
A Report by a Panel of the NATIONAL
Page 5 and 6:
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD.........
Page 7 and 8:
CHAPTER 12: MANAGEMENT APPROACHES A
Page 9 and 10:
Public Business High Performance Pa
Page 11 and 12:
Medicare and Medicaid health progra
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
FIGURE 1-1 CONTINUUM OF ORGANIZATIO
Page 17 and 18:
Coexistence: Cooperative: Contractu
Page 19 and 20:
Business FIGURE 1-3 HIGH-PERFORMANC
Page 21 and 22:
“Creating a partnership takes tim
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
FIGURE 2-2 NONPROFIT SECTOR REVENUE
Page 27 and 28:
TABLE 2-1 SECTOR DIFFERENCES Public
Page 29 and 30:
eform to establish some form of res
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
FIGURE 3-1 DESIGN LAB PARTNERSHIPS:
Page 35 and 36:
TABLE 3-2 DESIGN LAB — PARTNERSHI
Page 37 and 38:
dren. Nine MCCP case managers made
Page 39 and 40:
FIGURE 3-5 MEDICAL CARE FOR CHILDRE
Page 41 and 42:
“The Healthy Families Partnership
Page 43 and 44:
HFP is an excellent model of growin
Page 45 and 46:
identifying specific goals and outc
Page 47 and 48:
5 A DAY FOR BETTER HEALTH PROGRAM N
Page 49 and 50:
FIGURE 3-8 PUBLIC AWARENESS Percent
Page 51 and 52:
esponsible for developing specific
Page 53 and 54:
FAMILY STRENGTHENING COALITION INDI
Page 55 and 56:
Challenges Despite its solid track
Page 57 and 58:
Challenges NBSD encountered some ba
Page 59 and 60:
early intervention; and an early ch
Page 61 and 62:
CAREGIVER/EMPLOYER PROJECT CENTERS
Page 63 and 64:
Medicare insurer, CMS was the ultim
Page 65 and 66: A 1996 survey of La Alma/Lincoln Pa
Page 67 and 68: Public Business High Performance Pa
Page 69 and 70: and establishing performance manage
Page 71 and 72: PROGRAM AREA TABLE 4-2 SAMPLE PERFO
Page 73 and 74: The Lapham Park Venture originally
Page 75 and 76: THE DATA TRAP No partnership can cl
Page 79 and 80: FIGURE 5-1 THE 5 C’S OF EFFECTIVE
Page 81 and 82: SURVIVING TRANSITIONS IN LEADERSHIP
Page 85 and 86: Without a well-documented mission s
Page 87 and 88: FIGURE 6-4 CAREGIVER/EMPLOYER PROGR
Page 89 and 90: FIGURE 6-6 STRATEGIC PLANNING CYCLE
Page 91 and 92: BALANCING FOCUS AND FLEXIBILITY The
Page 95 and 96: Asset mapping is key to determining
Page 97 and 98: 8. Use third-party payment opportun
Page 99 and 100: partners agree that redirection is
Page 101 and 102: Individual governmental units, foun
Page 105 and 106: dedicate resources to effective ong
Page 107 and 108: The business community does not imm
Page 109 and 110: TABLE 8-3 FAMILY STRENGTHENING COAL
Page 113 and 114: Organizations may feel that a partn
Page 115: The PODER Project was a six-year in
Page 121 and 122: Results Characteristics • Derive
Page 123 and 124: FIGURE 10-2 PHASES OF LEADERSHIP Ma
Page 127 and 128: The CMS Employer/Caregiver Workgrou
Page 129 and 130: Informal communications strategies
Page 131 and 132: Management Approaches and Attribute
Page 133 and 134: Public managers tend to be risk ave
Page 135 and 136: Putting It All Together Chapter13 H
Page 137 and 138: FIGURE 13-2 ROWING TOGETHER FOR A H
Page 139 and 140: Appendix A Panel Member Biographies
Page 141 and 142: Appendix B Selected Bibliography
Page 143 and 144: National League of Cities. “City
Page 145 and 146: Appendix C Performance Management G
Page 147 and 148: Outcomes: The quantified result, or
Page 149 and 150: Appendix D Design Lab Participants
Page 151 and 152: Heidi Veltman Reston Kaiser Permane
Page 153 and 154: America’s Promise Gregg Petersmey
Page 155 and 156: Appendix E Excerpt from Lapham Park
Page 157 and 158: LAPHAM PARK VENTURE STRATEGIC PLAN,
Page 159 and 160: 2. Venture Operations Committee PUR
Page 161 and 162: Appendix F Memorandum of Understand
Page 163 and 164: ARTICLE I - HIGHLAND PARK SOUTHERN
Page 166:
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINIST
show all

High-Performance Partnerships - National Academy of Public ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?