Together we do better perspectives on partnership

1

TOGETHER WE DO BETTER PERSPECTIVES ON PARTNERSHIP

This white paper brought to you in collaboration by

Š

S ark Strate y

Foreword

3

I am delighted to present the following study, Perspectives on Partnerships, to our partners, stakeholders and the community.

This paper documents an exploration of the insights and experiences of our Young and Well partners, putting forth practical ideas for fostering and maintaining better partnerships, to deliver greater impact.

The Young and Well CRC partnered with Spark Strategy to produce the survey, engaging the majority of our our supporting partners. The response to the discussion was overwhelmingly positive.

The clear themes elucidated from the discussion were:

• Partnership is a superior mechanism for delivering social outcomes • Partnering impacts and innovates the business models of participating organisations • And like many strategies, its Achilles heel is execution

It is clear that if we are to tackle tough social issues such as suicide and depression, we needed crosssectoral collaboration to create holistic approaches for delivering systemic change.

While we know that it is often challenging, collaboration is our surest way of achieving our social objectives. This paper recognises and validates the importance of our partnership for establishing a common goal and shared vision.

The Young and Well CRC Connect 2014 national conference is a culmination of all our collective efforts thus far; the tireless dedication and passion of all our partner organisations to improving young people’s well being. I am excited to see this paper enrich the discussion.

Jane Burns CEO/ Young and Well CRC

Table of Contents Foreword Introduction The Panel The Conversation The Survey Findings & Analysis Typologies Business Models Practical Tips Resources Thanks

3 6 7 9 13 16 22 25 35 39 40

5

Teamwork is the ability to work together toward a common vision. The ability to direct individual accomplishments toward organisational objectives. It is the fuel that allows common people to attain uncommon results

Introduction

Complex social challenges require collaborative solutions. This study aims to contribute to the discourse on partnerships for social impact, exploring what works best in fostering and maintaining partnerships within the Young and Well CRC ecosystem and that can be applied across the sector.

The Perspectives on Partnerships survey is the product of collaboration between the Young and Well CRC and Spark Strategy. The study was designed primarily to inform a panel discussion at the Young and Well CRC Connect 14 national conference, ‘Together We Do Better: Perspectives on Partnerships’. The conference brings together young people and researchers, practitioners and policy-makers to exchange research, insights and discussion on the nexus of youth mental well-being and technology.

The aim was to gain the perspectives of the essential and supporting partners of the Young and Well CRC on both the social and organisational impact of partnerships. Through this process, the objective was to derive practical insights and recommendations for assessing potential partnerships and bolstering existing partnerships to engender healthy, productive organisation.

7

The Panel

GEORGE LIACOS MD / Spark Strategy

JERRIL RECHTER CEO / VicHealth

Michael Short DIRECTOR / Young and Well CRC

Wealth of expertise in supporting organisations to be more impactful through innovative and collaborative business models.

Experience in leadership across the areas of government and not-

Created The Zone in April 2010.

George Liacos is the MD of Spark Strategy. George brings a wealth of expertise in supporting organisations to be more impactful through innovative and collaborative business models. Spark has been advising organisations for over 16 years and does so from a very practical and action oriented perspective. He has experience in starting business and leading established a $100M + entity overseas and in Australia.

George’s public speaking and publishing resume are focused on moving past theory into actionable strategy, business models and transformation with a focus digital, organisations

Jerril has extensive experience in leadership across the areas of sectors. She is a World Health Organi ation Advisor, a board member of the International Network of Health Promotion Foundations, and a member of the Victoria’s Justice Health Ministerial Advisory Council. She has served on various state and national boards and committees, including VicHealth’s, as Board Member from 2004 to 2010.

Her Ministerial appointments have included the Victorian Eating Disorders Taskforce, Australia Day Committee Victoria, Council for the Arts Deputy Chair Dance Board, Arts Tasmania Board, Brand Tasmania Board and the Community Leaders Group Tasmania.

Michael rejoined The Age as executive editor – business, in March 2005, having worked at the newspaper in various roles in the 1980s and early 1990s. Since late 2002, when he returned from 10 years in Paris, he had been in charge of the Melbourne operations of The Australian Financial Review. His community involvement includes being an ambassador for SecondBite, a member of the external advisory committee of Monash University’s Department of Business Law & Taxation and a mentor for the Economics and Commerce Faculty at the University of Melbourne. He also has experience as a trained counselor for recovering heroin addicts at the First Step Clinic in St Kilda.

JAN OWEN CEO / Foundation for Young Australians In 2012, Jan was named the inaugural Australian Financial Review & Westpac Group ‘Woman

MIKE ZEEDERBERG MANGING DIRECTOR + JOINT OWNER / Zuni

In 2000 she was awarded membership of the Order of Australia for services to children and young people and in 1999 received a fellowship for leadership and innovation to the Peter Drucker Foundation (US). Jan is the author of Every Childhood Lasts a Lifetime (1996). Before joining FYA, Jan was Executive Director of Social Ventures Australia, and prior to this, Jan founded the CREATE Foundation.

She is currently Board Director, Australian National Development Index (ANDI); Chair, Bridges to Higher Education Advisory group; Member, RMIT College of Business Industry Advisory Board and Patron of Vanish.

Mike has over 13 years experience in the interactive marketing industry, both in digital integration and management roles. Mike’s key area of expertise is strategy with a focus on delivering deep consumer understanding and business strategy.

He founded the Australian version of Creative Social, a gathering of creative directors focused around improving digital creativity in Australia. He also established, and is Chair of Judges for Creative Showcase, the IAB’s regular digital creative award. He has co-chaired the judging panel for the IAB Awards in Australia and has judged the AIMIA, ADMA and AWARD awards as well.

A Young and Well CRC supporting partner

AIDEN HARRISON FOUNDER / Swish Start An initiative that uses basketball as a tool to raise young people’s awareness of mental health Aiden grew up in Junee NSW where he completed his HSC at the end of 2012 before taking a year off to teach English in China. about raising awareness for mental health when his best friend was diagnosed with depression, like so many of his peers. He has since joined his local headspace’s Youth Reference Group dubbed HUWY (Heads Up Wagga Youth) so that he can help raise awareness for mental health and other health issues relevant to young people.

The Conversation 9 problem’ (Stanford Social Innovation Review).

As this is the desired model of the Young and Well CRC partnerships, this framework is differently across sectors to denote various These descriptions are just some examples working relationships between organisations.

Partnership is commonly used interchangeably with terms such as cooperation, collaboration, debate. While we acknowledge the importance of this conversation, we were conscious in and collective impact. We acknowledge that conducting this survey of unduly restricting the conversation due to semantic barriers. leaders and policymakers, these concepts We are primarily interested in understanding the respondents’ experiences in all manner of partnering relationships. Thus, for the relationship. One such example is Vic Health, purposes of this paper we have adopted a who through their Partnerships Analysis broad interpretation of partnership, simply Tool kit, offer a description of partnerships meaning when two or more organisations as a continuum based on the purpose and nature of partnership. Partnership types contribute to processes and activities, which are distinguished in this framework by level transform resources into outcomes. of information and resource exchange, integration of activities and time commitment, increasing from networking, to coordinating, Partnering for social impact cooperating and collaborating. Collective impact, another concept describing Collaborative arrangements have long been a organisations working together, has been and business models. The common agenda important actors from different sectors to a into strategic alliances, mergers and joint

ventures. Prime objectives of these partner and supplier relationships include acquisition of resources, risk reduction and business model enhancement. This cascades to better

been increasing recognition of the importance of partnering to drive social impact. Many of sector through collaboration are comparable of collaboration are obvious: from leveraging resources, to increasing the depth of services delivered and generating brand awareness among stakeholders. encompassing over 600,000 organisations, employing approximately 8% of national workforce (Productivity Commission 2010) and contributing to 4.1% of the nation’s GDP. The cannot be underestimated. Determining the means to magnify the impact of these organisations and engender them with the capacity to make long-term, transformative

impact has become the key concern of Notcommunity at large.

As a sector, this cohort is yet to fully exploit the potential of collaborative arrangements to achieve their missions. Some organisational partnerships are in their infancy, still working out what it is they want from partnering and how best to work together, in terms of breadth and length of engagement, communication, and coordination of activities.

Other organisations have a clearer sense of their partnership objectives and terms of collaboration. No two partnership are identical, however despite structural and engagement differences, there appear to be common elements to successful partnerships as well as common pitfalls. This study anticipated the responses would elucidate some of these trends across partnership experiences.

The challenge to partnering for social impact

complexity of a multi-sided stakeholder

the stakeholders to optimize decisions and actions.

We know that the single most important organisation requires donors, philanthropists behaviour that contributes to species and investors to fund its operations and deliver prosperity is specialisation. Specialisation services. On the other hand, it has a base of requires social organisation. Similarly clients and recipients who use those services. specialising and working together is the key It is the reliance on funding for non-revenue for social organisations to foster creativity and generating activities, in a resource scarce innovation. They can then leverage their skills environment, which engenders competition and resources to have real impact, while also supporting the sustainability of the partner organisations. Despite this, we know that a piece of the pie, they miss opportunities to not all partnerships work well, while some partner with mission-aligned organisations partnerships are incredibly successful. and those with complementary skills or And so we arrive at the crux of the matter: how resources that ultimately deliver better results to get the partnership right so as to enhance for the end user. social impact and the sustainability of the partnering organisations. What does a healthy, Despite funding competition, it is now well successful partnership look like? And further accepted that tackling complex and systemic to this, what practical learning can we take social challenges requires a collaborative, from experiences to implement good practice holistic framework. Social change necessitates and improving partnering models? consideration of the complexities of an This study endeavoured to spark the issue. This can include the broader context conversation around those very questions. in which it exists and the interconnected nature of problems, drawing together all

11

broad, encompassing over 600,000 o ganisations, employing approximately 8% of national workforce and contributing to 4.1% of the nation’s GDP.

What does a healthy partnership look like to you?

Response: ___________

How have partnerships impacted your organisation’s business model?

Response:___________

What are the pitfalls you have experienced with partnerships?

Response: ___________

The Survey 13

Assumption is necessary to tackle social challenges and deliver systemic change.

Proposition: Partnering, when undertaken appropriately, offers a practical means of delivering better social outcomes while innovating and improving business and funding models.

The study focused on partnership experiences within the context of youth mental health. Respondents were asked qualitative questions on their experiences, perspectives and insights on partnerships for social impact. Approximately half of the essential or supporting partners of the Young and Well CRC were interviewed either face-to-face, by phone or online. Results were then collated and analysed, and aside from this paper, were also used as the bases of discussion points for the panel session ‘Perspectives on Partnerships’ at the Young and Well CRC Connect 2014 conference.

Survey Themes

1

Characteristics of a healthy partnership

2

How partnerships driving social change

3

How partnerships impact the organisation (business model)

15

4

Pitfalls / disadvantages of partnering

5

How to evaluate potential partners

6

Importance of Collective Impact elements

Findings and Analysis observations of interviewees responses. Below are a set of observations followed by a presentation of typologies rendered from these thematics. is an exploration of the impact to organisations’ business models, by typology. This addresses the second part of the hypothesis relating to the affect of partnerships on organisational models. Finally, all analyses are tied together into a list of suggestions from leaders that all can utilise as pragmatic guidance to optimise and improve their partnerships.

Observations The Good, The Bad and The Ugly As a pre-cursor to examining the social and organisational impact of partnering, the survey believed to be the characteristics of what a healthy, impactful partnership meant to them. Whilst the resulting list was extensive, three key themes presented themselves as unanimously perceived to being vital to a healthy partnership: 1. Effective communication: While responses were unanimous in stressing the importance of effective communication, there was great disparity as to what this actually looks like. There was a noticeable difference in their opinions of both communication frequency and modality. Respondents assessed the (to whom one of was communicating), purpose (is there a clear objective to the communication?), relevance (to audience)

2. Clear objectives, expectations and roles: The importance of clarifying the purpose of the partnership, the expected outcomes and the responsibility of each party from the very start of the relationship was reported as paramount for the effectiveness of partnerships.

3. Recognition of the different skills being brought to the partnership and ensuring that the promised contribution is delivered upon: Acknowledging each partner’s different capabilities was perceived as imperative for mutual respect and appropriate agreements. This allows organisations to insure that these agreements are met in reality, and that partners actually put in the grunt work to deliver on milestones. Without this, outcomes cannot be achieved and respect is lost.

Other salient characteristics declared involved, to shared values, transparency, an

understanding of the investment required over the life of the partnership, willingness accountability and effective governance.

“Contributions don’t necessarily have to be equal, but each partner needs to bring something useful to the table.”

To validate the importance of these partnership qualities, participants were also asked to describe the common pitfalls they experience during partnerships.

Interestingly the top three pitfalls cited were the exact converse of the aforementioned healthy characteristics. Poor communications, inability to manage cross sectoral differences and failure to deliver on expectations were matched only by the extensive management time required to coordinate various parties in many partnerships.

Other dysfunctions mentioned included strategic drift, invested partners, unwillingness of rebuilding relationships when partner organisations experience staff turnover.

HIGHER RETURN ON INVESTMENT LEVERAGE PARTNER RESOURCES E.G TECH & KNOWLEDGE CAPABILITY/BETTER PRACTICE EVIDENCE/R&D NETWORKING SUSTAINABILITY BRAND/PROFILE RAISING

So is partnering a more effective way of driving social impact, or should organisations just go it alone?

Even considering the potential pitfalls of partnerships, 100% of respondents agreed that,

when undertaken appropriately, partnership does indeed drive social impact more effectively than going it alone.

The top reasons expressed included: • The exchange of knowledge sets and complementary skills (after all, no one organisation will have the answers for cross-cutting social issues).

• Contribution to the funding platform • Networking • Increased media awareness and • Generation of collective energy • Stronger evidence for greater feasibility in solutions

Size matters:

A notable trend that emerged was that the consensus amoung smaller organisations was that partnering is vital to converting their strategy to operations. This can be attributed to the fact that it is often the only viable way to generate the necessary funding, resources and knowledge. However, many of the more established organisations, put a caveat into their initial responses,

17

by commenting that organisations may be able to generate outcomes that align to their core offering more quickly in partnership than if they did it alone.

1. Common Agenda: All participants have a shared vision for change including a common understanding of the problem and a joint approach to solving it through agreed upon actions

to the effectiveness of partnerships to deliver social outcomes is supported on a high level, additionally larger, more established

2. Shared Measurement: Collecting data and measuring results consistently across all participants ensures efforts remain aligned and participants hold each other accountable

more of a speed consideration.

“The sector can be obsessed with partnering, without recogni ing what that will mean and if it will be the most effective way of delivering” Exploring Perceptions of Collaborative Impact The sector is a buzz with the collective impact model of partnership (see inset). Whilst the term partnership has been broadly used to acknowledge that the Young and Well CRC follows the Collective Impact framework for partnership.

Research suggests there are particular critical success factors for this partnership model. There was interest to assess the relative importance to which each respondent placed these various conditions for success in their experiences of partnerships, ‘collective impact’ or otherwise.

successful partnerships and lead to meaningful outcomes from collective impact:

3. Mutually Reinforcing Activities: Participant activities must be differentiated while still being coordinated through a mutually reinforcing plan of action 4. Continuous Communication: Consistent and open communication is needed across the many players to build trust, assure mutual objectives, and appreciate common motivation 5. Backbone Organisation: Creating and managing collective impact of skills to serve as the backbone for the entire initiative and to coordinate participating organi ations and agencies To identify the perceived importance of each of the elements of this framework, interviewees were asked short answer questions and to rank the relative importance, using a Likert Scale, where 1 = not important, 5 = extremely important.

Shared measures were ranked as less important, with many respondents claiming that each organisation’s perception of “what success looks like” may differ, therefore it’s OK for these measures to differ. Transparency regarding partners’ measure of success was considered to have greater importance. The particular milestone measures of the project, however, should be established and agreed upon by all parties.

As the radar graph demonstrates, all elements were generally perceived as important, however a common agenda was ranked relatively higher than the rest.

Perceived Importance of Collective Impact Elements 19 COMMON AGENDA

COMMUNICATION

4.5 3

3.5

5 SHARED MEASURES

4

2.5

DISTINCT OR INDEPENDENT COORDINATING BODY

PLANNED AND COORDINATED ACTIVITIES

In your experience, what is the most effect way of communicating between partner organisations?

Top Attributes of a Highly Effective Coordinating Organisation?

HEAVILY RESOURCED EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE

The importance of having a distinct or independent coordinating body was challenged, with many interviewees contending that it is dependent on the size and complexity of the partnership. If only a few members are involved, then the general trend

MAINTAIN END GOAL WITH MANAGEMENT DECISIONS

one of the partners to adopt this coordinating role. Should there be the necessity for a backbone organisation, however, the listed attributes of these were reported as the graph to the left demonstrates.

HONEST BROKER

Communication

IMPARTIAL

RESPONSIVE

Finally, as mentioned at the start of the

COMMUNICATE THROUGH VARIOUS MODALITIES

communication is perceived as a “make or break� for partnerships, there was great disparity in the views of the best modality and frequency in which partners should communicate, as illustrated right.

As this demonstrates, responsiveness, communication and effective governance are the most highly valued characteristics. A coordinating body should pay particular attention to these areas.

Interestingly, there were no trends apparent on this matter in relation to size or maturity of organisation, it really just came down to

personal preference.

Most Effective Communication Tools

rule for communication, but rather highlights the need for partners to make explicit what works for them in terms of communication from the outset of the arrangement.

Evaluating potential partnerships In light of the analysis presented thus far, mean feat. So what is the best way to go about assessing potential partners? According to our interviews, the jury’s still out. In fact, there was a dead 50:50 split between respondents on whether or not they use a formal evaluation checklist or adopt a more organic process.

Formal checklists ranged in details but were generally based on following methods:

EMAIL STRUCTURED FACE TO FACE MEETINGS PHONE PROJECT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE NEWSLETTER RELATIONAL (TIME, PURPOSE, AUDIENCE)

• Business case analysis • Assessment of capability (e.g. research strength), interest and aptitude, • pragmatic implications • Alignment to strategic goals • Decision-making tree: e.g. What does the partner bring? Are they the only option?

Will the partnership render more costs or savings?

Themes arising from the more organic approach included:

• Integrity • Credibility • Shared belief • Thought leadership • Assessing whether the partnership appeared to be sustainable in the long-term (to eliminate administrative burden of establishing many short-term partnerships).

Partnership deal breakers When asked about declining partnerships, all but one respondent commented that they had done so in the past. The main reasons cited included the potential partners’ track record, brand risk, the partnership not aligning to core business, or suspicions that the potential partners’ motivation (e.g. using the relationship for a tax break). Secondary reasons included that the time frame to decide was too short, and the misalignment of values, scope and philosophy.

Whether respondents used evaluation checklists or not, nearly all expressed that their method was not perfect or was in need of updating. Developing a best practice framework is a potentially exciting collaboration opportunity for the sector.

21

NFP Partnership Typologies In synthesising our results four distinct partnership typologies emerged from the analysis, which are represented on the 2 x 2 matrix below. These typologies have been mapped according to the level of impact they are able to achieve as well as the temporal nature of the relationship.

ONE NIGHT STAND Transactional

SOUL MATES

Committed and Effective

TIME

HONEY MOONERS Drifters

IMPACT

THE LOVE-IN

Warm & Fuzzy

23

ONE NIGHT STAND

HONEY MOONERS

THE LOVE-IN

Transactional

Drifters

Warm & Fuzzy

These partnerships are characterised by their transactional nature, usually where funding is received in exchange for delivery on a single or point solution. These arrangements are potentially highly effective. Transactional partnerthey are simply focused and short lived. It’s not uncommon for two organisations to have multiple “one night stands”. We see this scenario often between organisations of disparate sizes, where the smaller organisation receives funds, resources or knowledge and the larger organisation ren-

These partnerships often begin with well intentioned enthusiasm.

This peters out, however, as one or more parties experience ‘strategic drift’, realise they’ve entered the partnership for the wrong reasons, or become overwhelmed by the amount of effort required to carry out the partnership’s purpose. The inevitable result is that the partnership becomes de-prioritised, people stop delivering on milestones, and, ultimately, relationships sour.

This type of partnership is collegial and nice to be a part of... but is not likely to get a lot done. Involving many meeting, emails and teleconferences, without result, these partnerships often lack an effective backbone organisation and avoid critical measurement of results.

Furthermore, they are often focused on survival rather than effectiveness. Parties in these partnerships also tend to fail to recogni e when the natural end has arrived, and instead of dissolving the arrange, continue on without a strong or relevant purpose.

SOUL MATES Committed & Effective

The “Brangelina” of all partnerships, this type of collaboration is formed on clear objectives, a solid understanding of mutual

communication, coordination and decision-making processes fosters the momentum and accountability required to drive results.

Knowledge sharing, the ability to compromise and willingness to just lend a hand when needed (without formal agreements) are the foundations for strong and lasting relationships. Ultimately, the organisations in these partcustodianship of an issue or IP for better outcomes, business and funding models.

WHICH TYPE CAN YOU IDENTIFY WITH?

Don’t worry, tips for improving and optimising can be found at the end of this paper.

25

Business Model

A business model describes the rationale of how an organisation creates, delivers and captures value This section of the paper addresses the second part of the hypothesis by exploring the affects of partnering on the operations of the previously identified typologies. This analysis provides options for rethinking your business model for viability and vitality.

Business Models, Partnering, Funding Models and other buzz words Business models convert resources into social outcomes through the mechanism of the social enterprise or organisation.

what the community values and demands. In other words, partnering must not only deliver better outcomes, rather these outcomes must be what the community wants, in the way that they want them.

In consulting talk, it’s about value driven design of products and services.

Money, people and other assets go in; social outcomes come out.

So value driven design tells us what we all should be doing and partnering is a way of us

At its heart, partnering for social impact is about improving the business model of the sector. Improving the social impacts going out, and the resources coming in.

innovatively for greater impact.

This is not simply an improvement in volume; it’s about innovation and improvement in the fundamental systems and nature of service production and delivery.

An important overlay of partnering is that the outcomes delivered by the partnership deliver

By looking at our suggestions below, organisations may unearth ideas of how to innovate or improve their business models. As we have written previously, improving business models is the pre-cursor to improving funding models.

OPTIMISING THE NONPROFIT BUSINESS In this section we:

The Canvas

1. Introduce the Business Model Canvas* tool as a means of understanding how resources are converted into outcomes.

2. Discuss what the survey found in terms of how partnering was impacting member business models 3. Raise opportunities missed for greater resource conversion

Key Partners

Key Activities

Key Resources

Cost Structure

We have found the Canvas to be a highly effective way of understanding how organisations convert their resources into outcomes. Below is an Bryann Alexandros & skylance.org. Let’s take a minute to understand how the model works so that we can go on to understand how partnership impacts the conversion of resources into outcomes and from there, what opportunities still exist for optimising this conversion process.

Social Value Propositions

Relations

Co-Creators

Channels

Outcome Streams

*“BMC” – a collaboratively authored tool based on the work by businessmodelgeneration.com

27

ENGAGEMENT LEVEL Social Value Propositions The Canvas starts by understanding the Social Value Propositions.

What problem are we trying to solve? What value do we deliver to our stakeholders? What are our programs and services? Why do our stakeholders value what we do and what’s in it for them? Importantly, savvy organisations will build their value proposition based around what its stakeholders want and demand, not around what it produces On the right hand of the Social Value Proposition component are those components of the business model that engage with community and stakeholders.

Social Value Propositions

Relations

Co-Creators a.k.a Stakeholders For whom are we creating value? Who helps us create outcomes or our value proposition? For example: investors, philanthropists, donors, clients, recipients, members, volunteers, advocates and collaborative Relations How do we interact and relate to our stakeholders. What kind of relationships do co-creators want from us? For example, transactional, experiential, long term, high touch etc.

Channels How do we reach our stakeholders? How do they want to receive our communications, programs, support? For example, face to face, online etc.

The combination of what value we create, for whom we create value, within what relationship style and modality constitutes the engagement side of our business model and as such contains the outcomes society receives from our organisation.

Channels

Co-Creators

OPERATIONS LEVEL On the left hand side of the Canvas is how the organisation goes about the business of converting resources into outcomes.

Key Activities What processes and activities are required to deliver our social value propositions and maintain operations?

29 Key Partners

Key Activities

Key Resources What resources are deployed by the key activities in driving operations and creating outcomes?

Key Partners Who are our key partners and suppliers from which we secure resources and activities to enable our operations and help us deliver our social value proposition?

The combination of what we do with our resources and who helps us to

that we need partners in some situations. innovate the way that organisations convert resources into outcomes through partnerships, we must look at each component of the canvas and The remainder of this section will peel back each component and try to understand where organisations feel the impact of partnering. It will then seek to identify ways in which more can be done to exploit partnering at the business model layer.

Key Resources

Canvas One: One Night Stand Key Partners

Key Activities

Key Resources

Cost Structure

Social Value Propositions

Relations

Channels

Outcome Streams

Co-Creators

This partnership is about high impact, short duration. Its doesn’t mean other partnerships cant be formed between the two same organisations.

In this typology partners have high impact low duration relationships in which resources are typically combined. Whilst some short duration partnerships are about sharing activities, they typically don’t exchange the activities that each had previously done – simply due to the expected short duration of the relationship. into an organisation’s business model occurs In this case, Partners determine whom they should partner with and engage accordingly.

They negotiate what resources they need from each other, and standing in the shoes of one member, receive these resources.

These resources enable activities, which in turn deliver services in line with the organisation’s value proposition. Additionally

the resources also enable one or both members to adjust the volume or modality of customer contact as well as deepen or broaden reach. With this come improved engagement and services that typically drive outcomes.

This type of partnering rarely alters the target recipients of the outcome.

The critical business model implication of the One Night Stand is that resources are exchanged to enable each member to undertake activities. It is not usual for components of the business model from the integration between partners or for sub components to be swapped or merged.

Key Instigator of change to model

Resources

Components Improved by Partnering

Activities, Relations and Channels

Components unchanged

by Partnering

Cost Models and Stakeholders

Missed Opportunities

Cost reductions, function sharing, potential expanded segments

31

Canvas Two: Soul Mates Key Partners

Key Activities

Key Resources

Cost Structure

Social Value Propositions

Relations

Channels

Outcome Streams

Co-Creators

This partnership is about high impact, long duration.

In this typology partners have high impact long duration relationships in which resources are typically combined. Long duration partnerships are more about sharing activities and even relocating activities or IP between members – this investment is often done in recognition that the relationship will endure and structural change will have a longterm payback.

33

Key Instigator of change to model

Key Activities

In this case, partners determine who they should partner with and engage accordingly. The engagement in the Partner domain indicates

Components Improved by Partnering

Key Activities, Resources, Costs, Relations and Channels

as well as some external coordination of member functions. Partners negotiate what resources they need from each other, and standing in the shoes of one member, transact these resources.

Components unchanged

by Partnering

Stakeholders

Missed Opportunities

Cost model and synergy improvements

These resources enable activities, which in turn deliver services in line with the organisation’s value proposition. They also enable one or both members to adjust the volume or modality of customer contact as well as deepen or broaden reach. With improved engagement and services an organisation can typically drive improved outcomes.

The critical business model implication of the Soul Mate is that investment is made by partners based on an expectation of an enduring relationship. This investment leads to impacts and synergies across the model.

Canvas Three: Innovative Partnerships In this typology partners also have high impact long duration relationships in which resources are typically integrated. In this

Key Partners

how fundamental innovation of the resource and cost models convert into outcomes. The aim is not to simply offset (One Night Stand) or share (Soul Mates) but to shoot for the cliché of one plus one equals three – inside the member organisation.

Key Activities

Social Value Propositions

Relations

Co-Creators

Channels

Key Resources

The starting point is again Partnerships, but in this case each component of the model is organisation takes the following journey: Step 1: What can we do better together?

Step 2: What synergies can we both gain?

Step 3: If we forget what we do today, and dream of the optimal design for each component of the model, what can we both contribute and how Step 4: With this innovative operating model, how can we innovate engagement and by doing so multiply outcomes?

Custodianship of resources becomes irrelevant as members focus on the outcomes demanded or possible and design the business model accordingly. More importantly the custodianship of issues and outcomes become less important as outcome maximisation becomes the shared objective.

Cost Structure

Outcome Streams

Key Instigator of change to model

Partnerships

Components Improved by Partnering

All

Components unchanged by Partnering

None

Missed Opportunities

None – budgetary constraints can limit the design

SOME

PRACTICAL

TIPS

In bringing the lessons from this survey together, we have developed 12 Practical Suggestions on how to Optimise and Improve Partnering for Social Impact The ideas and thoughts are practical in nature and based on both the survey responses and other conversations with business leaders.

Strategic Suggestions

objectives of Avoid custodial the partnership so that and possessive

Redesign the

the outcomes deliver what the community values, in a manner value.

Do not consider funding models until the business model of the partnership and each of its members is clear.

behaviour (of

the issue, IP and other resources) in determining who will do what as part of the Partnership.

TAKE THE TIME to assess the prospective members of the Partnership.

Use a structured approach that balances both rational and cultural considerations.

35

SOME

PRACTICAL

TIPS

Operational Suggestions

Even if the premise of the partnership is based on funding, take the time to explore whether other resources can be exchanged for mutual don’t rule out setting up processes and connections to make subsequent low duration high impact partnerships with funders

Take the time to develop a robust common agenda and common metrics. Holding each other accountable and early warning systems are crucial to high impact outcomes

If there are a large number of members and if the program requires complex coordination, or if there is a political map to navigate, consider establishing an independent coordinating body. Otherwise

KEEP IT SIMPLE

BE CLEAR about what your organisation can commit to such a partnership.

Short duration partnerships are OK as long as they have IMPACT. If you are aiming for a long run then critically evaluate your organisational stamina.

Take the time to run a ruler over the functioning of the partnership (and its members) to ensure there is a straight line between activities within the organisation and the desired outcomes.

It’s a simple test that often fades over the life of a relationship.

SOME

PRACTICAL

TIPS

Cultural Suggestions

Communicate often. Find the

right modality for the frequency of each partnership. Avoid lengthy detailed emails and critically assess the need for many meetings. If there is a topic you really feel there in person.

AS A LEADER ensure that you do not allow your team to speak badly of your partners. Move them from negative to opportunity thinking and raise such sentiment with the partner in question so as to mutually resolve emerging issues.

IF YOU WANT HIGH IMPACT, AVOID PEOPLE WHO TALK TOO MUCH

37

By following these simple suggestions may you have as many one night stands avoid post honeymoon break ups and

39

Resources Available here.

VicHealth. 2011. ‘The Partnerships Analysis Tool’. Available here.

Kania, J. and M. Kramer. ‘Collective Impact’, Stanford Social Innovation Review, Winter 2011.

Available here.

FSG. 2014 ‘What is Collective Impact?’.

Available here.

Available here.

We’re grateful The Young and Well CRC and Spark Strategy would like to thank all who contributed to this study and welcome any feedback. info@sparkstrategy.com.au

ESSENTIAL PARTNERS AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY, BRAIN & MIND RESEARCH INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY, BEYONDBLUE, BLACK DOG INSTITUTE, BUTTERFLY FOUNDATION, HEADSPACE: NATIONAL YOUTH MENTAL HEALTH FOUNDATION, INSPIRE AUSTRALIA, MURDOCH UNIVERSITY, ORYGEN YOUTH HEALTH, QUEENSLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN SYDNEY, UNIVERSITY OF MELBOURNE, UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA, VICHEALTH

41

SUPPORTING PARTNERS Adelaide Metro Mental Health Directorate – Southern (SA Health) Alannah and Madeline Foundation Australian Communications and Media Authority Australian Federal Police Australian Medicare Local Alliance Australian Youth Affairs Coalition BasicNeeds Berry Street Victoria Boystown (Kids Helpline) Canteen City of Melbourne Country Health SA Department of Justice Edith Cowan University Facebook Flinders University Foundation for Young Australians Google Australia and New Zealand Hello Sunday Morning HitNet Innovations Hunter Institute of Mental Health Inspire Ireland Foundation Inspire USA Foundation Intuitive Media Australia Johns Hopkins University Ladder Project Ltd Lifeline Australia

Mind Australia Moment Dynamics Movember National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect National Childrens’ and Youth Law Centre National LGBTI Health Alliance Nationwide Children’s Hospital, Ohio Novita NSW Centre for the Advancement of Adolescent Health Children and Young People’s Commission Victoria Ohio State University Principals Australia Institute Reach Foundation RMIT University Starlight Children’s Foundation STREAT Student Edge Student Youth Network Suicide Prevention Australia Telstra Turning Point Twenty10 Association University of California, San Francisco University of Canberra

University of NSW (NCPIC) University of the Sunshine Coast Victoria University WA AIDS Council WA Centre for Health Promotion Research Yahoo!7 YCentral (Children and Young People’s Mental Health Service) Youth Focus YouthLaw Zuni