Public Engagement Strategies

brett boston, Governance, Group Process, Public Engagement Strategies, Strategy

A Growth in Public Sector Partnering (Part 2)

December 10, 2017 Group Solutions

In the first article of this series we discussed how flat-to-declining public sector budgets are making partnerships more attractive to government agencies. We discussed the concept of “collaborative capital” as a means for the public sector to enhance skills, funding, data, staff, and competencies that it no longer possesses.

Further, we outlined 4 distinct resource types needed by partnerships.

Intellectual Capital: the data, unique processes, software, and insight that is the basis of each partner’s business model. It includes the ability to confer legitimacy on any of the above.
Political Capital: the ability of each partner to influence public policy, regulation, law, and public budgets.
Labor: the staff and volunteers each partner can commit toward ongoing governance, developing solutions, and implementation.
Financial Capital: the actual dollar funding each partner provides toward the solution.

Each of these 4 elements of collaborative capital are generally required to solve public sector problems. Not surprisingly, financial capital is the element most often in short supply. There are 3 main reasons for this:

Public sector budgets are flat or have been declining for over a decade.
Public sector partnership members tend to be from other public sector agencies (federal, state, and local), nonprofit organizations, universities, and quasi-governmental groups like advisory councils and planning authorities. These groups generally have resource elements 1, 2 and 3, but little financial capital.
There is an ongoing reticence for public sector groups to partner directly with the private sector. The private sector could be a great source of financial capital, but there are concerns about:

The private sector having different motives – profit motives. Profit motives are generally viewed by the public and nonprofit sectors as preventing altruistic funding. The common view is that few private sector entities define altruism as essential to their business model and the funding they provide has strings attached.
The motives for partnering are as important as the goals of the partnership. Suspicion of profit oriented motives can lead to mistrust and suspicion of the private sector by other sectors. “What are they after?”, is a question we often hear.
In the case of nonprofits, partnering with the private sector can be seen by their membership as “selling out”.
Additionally, public sector partnering with the private sector is complicated by laws, policies, and formal oversight rules that increase the burden of compliance and administration.

It’s all about perceived risk.

There is an inherent risk that all parties in a partnership must subscribe to – mainly the risk that one’s partners will do something negative and the fallout will impact everyone’s reputation. Right or wrong, public and nonprofit sectors often perceive this risk to be higher, or more likely to occur, when working with private sector partners.

Our experience has shown partnerships that include the private sector are no riskier than partnerships between public sector entities and between the public sector and nonprofit sectors.

Partnerships within the public sector – between federal agencies, or between federal and state agencies – have all the same real and perceived risks as partnering with the private sector.

The perceived risk items for private sector partnering listed above are identical to partnering within the federal, state or nonprofit sectors. Money from any source other than the private sector is viewed as a good thing. This aversion by many to private sector funding and participation is the next great hurdle for public sector leaders to address. The decline in public funding for critical programs and priority projects may just be the catalyst that breaks the ice for some.

As public sector budgets continue to decline, access to outside financial resources will, of necessity, become a key source of funding. It will become necessary to seek out private sector entities willing to bring financial resources to the partnership.

Breaking down the perceived risks and barriers to include all sectors in a partnership involves unpacking the elements of business trust. In the next section, we will cover those elements and outline how to apply a model of business trust to expanding beyond the traditional and obvious partners.

brett boston, Governance, Group Process, Public Engagement Strategies, Strategy

A Growth in Public Sector Partnering

November 8, 2017 Group Solutions

partnership (1)

noun part·ner·ship \ ˈpärt-nər-ˌship \

Definition of partnership

:an arrangement in which people engage in an activity or business with one another or share something with each other

There is growing public sector interest in partnerships. Once found only in the private sector, the concept of partnering is increasingly important to how the public sector approaches:

resource constraints,
increasingly complex problems, and
implementation of sustainable solutions.

In this new series of articles, we will discuss new concepts in public sector partnering. We outline the elements of a good partnership. We also provide some suggestions for assessing partnerships governance and performance.

It is important to define partners as being different from stakeholders. Partners bring resources to the fight. Stakeholders bring issues, points of view, and positions. Partners invest time, talent, and treasure – the 3 Ts – to mutually determined problems.

As public sector budgets remain flat, or decline, hiring and contracting for services are no longer options. The public sector is increasingly seeking partners to provide the skills, funding, data, staff, and competencies that it does not possess. We refer to this joining of resources as “collaborative capital.” Collaborative capital is the sharing of intellectual capital, political capital, labor, and financial capital among many organizations to address a defined problem.

Intellectual Capital: the data, unique processes, software, and insight that is the basis of each partner’s business model. It includes the ability to confer legitimacy on any of the above.
Political Capital: the ability of each partner to influence public policy, regulation, law, and public budgets.
Labor: the staff and volunteers each partner can commit toward ongoing governance, developing solutions, and implementation.
Financial Capital: the actual dollar funding each partner provides toward the solution.

Each of these 4 elements of collaborative capital are generally required to solve public sector problems. Each partner should provide some or all the 4. Some partners bring only one of the above and others all four. The most successful partnerships have the necessary and sufficient partners to provide all 4 types of collaborative capital.

In the next segment, we will discuss each of the collaborative capital elements in more detail, and how they play out in public sector partnering.

brett boston, Public Engagement Strategies, Strategic Thinking

Can a type font help a city make a comeback?

February 17, 2012February 17, 2012 Group Solutions

A recent article in Good Design discussed how three type font designers are creating a cohesive look for the City of Chattanooga. All on their own. Without asking for permission or having a commission. I find it to be an incredible story of how vision, strategy, and change can occur, without having to check in with the power’s that be, or leverage a hot new technology or market trend.

For strategists, fonts might seem a strange beginning point for a discussion on shared vision, shared future, and a major urban planning effort. Even more surprising is the ignition point for the change happened in a coffee shop, when two of America’s font designers (this is a job?) started a conversation on type fonts that grew into a vision for their community.

How do we get from font designs to large-scale urban planning, change and shared vision. Easily it seems. Using fonts as a means to a design end is similar to what Apple or Nike do for product marketing. Creating a unique and representative look and feel is a standard marketing and branding strategy. The rub is that businesses generally do not start planning efforts with a font and move to a product. It’s typically the other way around.

From a simple discussion on fonts, the designers segued into how to use font to create a branding strategy for an entire city. It is a bold notion; visionary, radical, insane, and really, really smart. For all of us that have tried to do any form of urban or community planning its simplicity is sublime and enviable. Sure, these guys will get their share of egg-throwers, font-wannabee critics, and folks that are just against anything (and for nothing). And yes, the change effort will require just as much work as any traditional planning effort. The same amount of convincing, selling, involving, political wrangling, and public input. They will need the same commitment to see it through as all planners to create any plan that involves change. But darn it, you just have to admit that it looks like a lot more fun to do it their way.

Business strategists and community planners take note. The sparks that ignites strategies and large-scale change are occurring more and more in the realm of social media technologies, art and the design world. Staying current with cultural trends, not just marketing trends, business, and “go to” sources for competitive trends, will round-out your strategy palette.

brett boston, Governance, Operational Planning, Public Engagement Strategies, Scenario Planning, Strategic Planning, Strategic Thinking, Strategy

home

February 4, 2012February 10, 2012 Group Solutions

Short-term thinking is in the ascendancy.

A lack of long-term perspective is impacting all aspects of modern society:

There are no national strategies on energy, future technology development, and for the first time in generations, no societal commitments on a shared vision for a better future.
Short-term focus on huge investment returns is leading to expectations of returns well beyond what was once respectable. This is driving investor expectations that can only be met through complex derivative and mathematically driven financial instruments that few understand, and that are so highly leveraged, that the global economy now pivots on unexpected global incidents.
Most organizations are head down in tinkering around the edges, with few attempting to reinvent themselves with dynamic and innovative models of organizational design and product innovation.

My posts will focus on the value of strategy and shared vision to addressing some aspects of these issues. I will cover the creation of informal multi-organizational partnerships and how they can cooperatively serve to address increasingly complex issues. How to create intentional strategies that move the needle toward a shared vision held by any organization or multi-organizational entity. As importantly, we will also explore the value of involving a broad array of interested, but nontraditional partners in today’s strategic thinking and show how inclusion of these new and unconventional players complicates planning, but greatly improves implementation.

Together, let’s explore what’s possible in strategic planning and vision setting.

Looking forward to a creative and fruitful dialogue.

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30