I agree that dialogue is a first step but in our context in Zambia whether that results in an opportunity to work together depends in entirely on power relations and thats where things break down. Governments in particular tend to be less inclined to collaborate because they feel they are all powerful and may not need private sector. The private sector needs them. How do you get past this problem? Its a big one in Zambia
Mike, based on the work we have done in Zambia with the Business in Development Facility, I can say anecdotely the answer is yes -- and hopefully TPI's research will confirm it more directly! One of the first workshops I ran there started out with a fairly intense discussion about the challenges to partnering. Once we moved to -- how do we solve "issue XYZ" through partnership, I could see the room relax, and the relationship between people shift energetically. I think when people begin to focus on solutions, and encouraged to do so with non-traditional partners, we can see the early stages of trust. However, solidifying deep trust takes lots of follow through and time...
First of all I would like to thank TPI making this important space were we can interact and share our experiences and opinions, following up the first question I can talk about to barriers particulars un our country, the first one is non opportunities for low income people and the second one is business are worried about making business and are trying to contribute in the social development but many times we don’t see poverty or people in this condition as an opportunity.
I think that the best way to overcome these obstacles is making APP´s public and private alliances, but also public – public alliances or private private alliances, in this effort is important to understand each role in the common objective in these case co - creating opportunities for low income people with inclusive bussines models.
Certainly you can not leave it up to a person or a small group within an organization. You have to create a system and culture of promoting collaboration. Making everybody part of this collaborative culture enhances your chances that great ideas and not just right people, show up at the right place and at the right time.
Hello Albena, one of the questions we are looking at our research is What does “success” of the platform look like, and how do you measure it? What processes/ procedures are in place to record/review platform activities? I agree, 'equal partners' is one part of the answer. Are you aware of any examples where they actually measured the success of the platform itself? (As opposed the the success of its initiatives?)
One of the challenges of Global Partnerships is exactly the issue of how they can drive partnerships on the ground. The Global Fund with its sheer weight of funding is able to push down into countries. In other areas such as education, or Sustainable Energy for All, where there isn't a major funding incentive from above, there needs to be much more of a bottom-up approach. Country level platforms that can engage stakeholders from across the sectors, collectively build the understanding of the importance of the issue to business, and develop more innovative partnerships that can combine the available local resources and competencies in ways that can deliver results much more efficiently and effectively. But it takes considerable time to make that happen!
The Global level can play a role in sharing learning, helping to facilitate the development of local platforms, supporting international policy etc.
A challenge. Besides companies, NGO's and public sector also have different drivers. Synergies to find pro-poor business solutions seem to be there in theory, but often still fail in practice. Intermediary organisations are popping up globally to build bridges between these distinct stakeholders.
An example where the partnership really have evolved in particular areas I mentioned is on the production and local distribution of a biogas socket. A result of a BOP venture between a development organisation, R&D innovation institute and a private company. More info can be can be found here http://www.bopinc.org/projects-initiatives-79/cross-cutting-themes/biogas-socket
Thanks for sharing that great example. I would highly recommend any of the IGD work in this area. I'd also point people to the work by WBCSD: http://snipbfp.org/1eaESL1 and the recent report by The Harvard Kennedy School's CSR Initiative and Business Action for Africa: http://snipbfp.org/18dlnR0
Has there been a good experience in Colombia and Panama with PPAs? Could you give examples?
Hi Geoffrey,
Yes I am aware of what SADC and COMESA have been doing. I am merely referring to the examples in health and CCMs as an illustration that a number of things have worked in Africa. Similarly business coalitions have played a very important role in organizing these new commitments (SABCOHA the South African Coalition, PABC the Pan African Coalition);
m
On a very simplistic basis, organisations can ensure that they are building partnership skills into their organisation and leadership development curricula. Not everyone needs to be expert, but I would argue that as collaboration becomes more of a norm in the way we work; everyone needs the basics. And partnering with organisations from other sectors of society is quite different from business to business or NGO/NGO partnerships - requiring a different kind of training and development.
Hi Gaston, this is a good point - what would you say are the defining characteristics of an organisation that has a collaborative culture?
Trust-based relationships do take time to build, and people need to be given the time and space to build these.
A combination of environment scanning and serendipity can lead to the identification of the "right" partnership opportunity.
In terms of skills, they need to be able to think, work and collaborate across boundaries to understand and embrace a diversity of perspectives.
In my view, the first step in trying to effectively engage business (private sector) in the development agenda is by working on equipping businesses with a conducive business environment and easy access to key support services. Yes, it is true that business is well positioned to be a key player in development. Governments and other development partners should therefore put more effort in ensuring that the private is well equipped to be an equal partner in development.
On the flip side, the business sector can also significantly contribute by devising more innovative business models which factor in the low end of society (the poor) in their value chains.
Hi All!
Ashoka are hoping to formalise co-creation between the public, private and citizen sector and work to support and celebrate these collaborations through recognition of individuals breaking down these walls!
To kick-start this, Ashoka, the Zermatt Summit Foundation, Fondation Guilé, DPD and Boehringer Ingelheim are launching an online collaborative competition, Social & Business Co-Creation: Collaboration for Impact to source, highlight and catalyze innovative Co-Creation projects in Europe led by social-mission organisations (e.g. NGO, association, not-for-profit, foundation, social enterprise), traditional businesses and public institutions. These models will illustrate new forms of interaction between social and business to create shared social and economic value at scale, contributing to the common good. As a result, new products and services are developed to address essential needs of underserved populations, “last mile” solutions are in place to make these accessible to all, new jobs are created and business culture is changing. All social-mission organisations, businesses and public institutions who work together to create change in Europe can apply. The competition deadline is April 10, 2014. The winners will receive coaching and €40,000 in prizes, and will be featured in prominent media. The prizes will be awarded at the Zermatt Summit on June 27th, 2014.
Recently, someone suggested to me that you either need the right internal systems OR a culture conducive to partnering; you don't necessarily need both. Her thinking was that a strong culture will ensure that the actions taken throughout an organization are naturally supportive and that concrete systems might inhibit innovation. However, if the culture is not pervasive, systems need to be in place to ensure everyone takes appropriate action. What are others thoughts on this?
Applied to the question above, which--systems or culture--would increase the chances that the right person would be in the right place at the right time? I would posit culture. Culture is internalized and is pervasive within an organization, while systems are simply a means of ensure order within that organization.
This has be a great discussion. We will leave the discussion open - so please do feel free to keep posting your comments.
If you would like to read more about this topic, take a look at the blogs pubished this week by The Partnering Initiative:
- Can Partnerships Become 'The New Normal'?
- Six Partnership Propositions
- What Does a Collaborative Society Look Like?
- Clearing the Language Barriers
Also please take a few minutes to complete this Partnership Roadmap Survey.
You can find out more about TPI on their website, and you can follow them on Twitter (@TPI_Tweets).
A big thanks to all our panellists and to everyone who participated in this discussion.
Collaboration needs to become the way we expect to operate (not that we collaborate when we don't need to - but how often will that be?) and so we will have intentional collaboration strategies and collaborative operational/business models. Part of this is having a very honest understanding of who we are as an organisation and the competencies, resources, knowledge, access (the whole long list!) of what we can bring to the table and - critically what we can't. Then we can reach out to explore potential partners. Too many organisations aren’t self-aware enough to know their limitations....a ”we can do everything” attitude is a major stumbling block in moving to a collaborative mindset.
For years, governance in the developing world has failed the people. Who rules and who makes the rules make it impossible to overlay another architecture over the current political framework of states. The funding mechanisms (rich nations to poor nations) are also fraught with problems. The funds hardly get to the intended uses. We must rethink the strategies, the players and the sources of funding. Yes, developing nations need funding - but not at the expense of poor and bad governance, not at the expense of corruption and lack of accountability for the funds. Until, these basic and fundamental issues are addressed, layering business over what currently exists will perpetuate poverty.
We have to draw a line somewhere. Governments are elected to govern. Business pays taxes. To the extent that business remains profitable to reinvest and engage in CSR and remains a good corporate citizen,and Governments enact enabling legislation for business growth a partnership exists. In theory.
The matter of poverty eradication becomes a matter for engagement at a different level.