Critical success factors in inter-institutional project collaborations

Since its establishment in 2007, Ako Aotearoa: National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence has funded over 150 projects focused on changing practice and improving learner outcomes through the three Regional Hub Project Funds (RHPF): Northern Region, Central Region and Southern. Project teams are encouraged to consult and collaborate with others leveraging what Huxham (1996) calls the ‘collaborative advantage’, achieved when something new is produced - perhaps an objective is met - that no single organisation could have produced. By mid-2014, the total number of completed projects supported by the Regional Hub Project Fund and published on Ako Aotearoa’s website which had involved inter-institutional project teams had reached 44. This report outlines an evaluation of the collaboration experience within these multi-organisation projects with the purpose of determining the factors which contribute to a successful project team and sustainable community of practice. The two overarching objectives were first, to address gaps in both organisational knowledge and the literature about inter-institutional collaborations and what makes them reach, exceed, or fail their potential to deliver long term value and benefits to participants; and second, to summarise the learnings from project teams’ experience of collaborative work to produce a resource for future teams. This investigation, from its inception, was intended to be both applied and practicable in its outcomes, with a high relevance to the wider tertiary education community; this ethos has guided all aspects of the project design and reporting. A four-phase enquiry was conducted, comprising 1) a document analysis of all completed RHPF projects to determine those which had involved inter-institutional project teams (n=44); 2) a literature review; 3) an online survey (n=41, representing a 34% response rate), and 4) interviews with invited participants (n=18). In addition, the report also recounts the research team’s own experience of establishing a good interinstitutional collaborative process, placing the researchers within the project as participants themselves: a deliberate and conscious approach to generate insights into useful tools, techniques and timing. The survey was adapted from an existing instrument for measuring collaboration effectiveness, the Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory (n.d.) which generated a series of ranked responses per factor for each project (see Appendix A). By assigning a numerical value to these responses, high, medium and low-scoring projects were identified, enabling the team to ensure a cross-section of experiences were selected for follow-up interviews. Although this comparison was undertaken as part of the team’s decision-making, rather than for any external reporting, one important outcome can be shared: all 22 projects represented in the sample scored positively (between 1 and 79) within a range of -100 to +100. The final stage of survey data analysis was to aggregate individual factor scores across projects to identify the overall weighting for each of the 24 factors. Next, the 18 candidates for the semi-structured interviews identified from the survey responses were invited to share their experiences of inter-institutional collaborative project work. Ten question prompts (Appendix B) covered four stages in the collaboration: the precondition, or relationship-building period; the beginning, when the work is planned; the process-interaction stage; and the outcomes period of reflection, evaluation and change (Gray, 1989). These interviews were transcribed and coded for emerging themes. Survey results are presented as a brief discussion of the highest and lowest scoring factors, while interview results are collated under ten topic areas, with interview participants’ voice included throughout to allow readers a sense of the variety of experiences encompassed, and the impact these have had on those involved. A key finding was that 10 of the 18 interviewees were still collaborating with some or all members of the original team in activities such as research, resource development, co-authoring, co-teaching and copresenting, meaning that just over half the collaborative networks developed through RHPF projects were sustainable and had led to long-term significant and tangible benefits for team members. Other findings discussed in this report relate to the ‘trickle-down effect’ where informants described the way practitioner involvement in collaborative change projects led to learner benefits, and to specific approaches, issues and circumstances which either enabled or restricted the success of the collaboration. Results from all phases of the project were mined to identify the most important elements that make a collaboration work, again using the adapted Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory (n.d.), and Gray’s (1989) collaboration stages as a framework. These elements then inform the main (and separate) output from this project: “Getting on: A Guide to Good Practice in Inter-Institutional Collaborative Projects”. This guide is available at https://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/research-register/list/critical-success-factors-inter-institutionalproject-collaborations and is intended to assist teams who are embarking on a new collaborative project

A manganese carbonyl complex derived from the P,N-bonding ligand (2-aminophenyl)diphenylphosphine

Thermal reaction of [H3Mn3(CO)12] with Ph2PC6H4NH2-2 gives good yields of [Mn2(CO)6(PPh2C6H4NH)2], an X-ray single crystal structure determination of which reveals a P,N-chelating ligand with each of the NH groups, formed by deprotonation of the amine groups, bridging the two metal atoms