PARTNER TOOL BUSINESS PLAN by Upstream Creative Services

PARTNER

Program to Analyze, Record, and Track Networks to Enhance Relationships

WWW.PARTNERTool.NET UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

PARTNER WWW.PARTNERTool.NET Danielle M. Varda | Assistant Professor Director, Research Program on Collaborative Governance University of Colorado Denver, School of Public Affairs 1380 Lawrence St, #500 Denver, CO 80204  Phone: 303-315-2129 eMail: Danielle.Varda@ucdenver.edu

www.facebook.com/partnertool

PARTNER

PARTNER Program to Analyze, Record, and Track Networks to Enhance Relationships PARTNER: Program to Analyze, Record, and Track

This document outlines the five-year business

Networks to Enhance Relationships, and its support-

plan for PARTNER. The focus is on:

ing technical assistance and quality improvement process, is recognized as a beneficial component of understanding and enhancing collaborative efforts. PARTNER was launched as a free social network analysis tool in 2008 with support from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The tool is now the center of a process of assessment, analysis, coali-

1. The “value -add” of PARTNER and our team’s ability to help develop and analyze collaborations 2. The “quality improvement” aspect of the PARTNER process

tion enhancement, and relationship strengthening.

3. Opportunities to diversify funding

A growing community of users has increased

4. sustainability

the demand for technical assistance from the PARTNER team. Accordingly, PARTNER must now develop a more diverse funding portfolio to support this need.

PARTNERTOOL.NET

WHAT IS PARTNER? PARTNER uses social network analysis (SNA) to measure collaboration among people or organizations. PARTNER is comprised of an online tool, training and consultation. The PARTNER team provides expertise in analysis, planning and implementation to identify areas of collaborative enhancement. The PARTNER tool is designed for use by members of a collaborative (that is, three or more partners) to demonstrate how members are connected, how resources are leveraged and exchanged, the levels of trust and value, and to link outcomes to the process of collaboration. The tool includes an online survey and an automated social network analysis program that analyzes these data.

PARTNER is more than a tool. It is a process that moves collaborations from where they are to where they want to be.

PARTNER

PARTNER QUALITY IMPROVEMENT PROCESS USING PARTNER to Develop Strategies

DEFINE GOALS

ASSES RELATIONSHIPS

ANALYZE DATA & COMPARE TO GOALS

DEVELOP STEPS TO ACHIEVE GOALS

Before using the tool to

The web-based PARTNER

These data are analyzed

Using this information,

assess a network, members

tool is then implemented to

using social network analysis

action steps to move the

of a collaborative should

collect data from network

methodologies and com-

group closer to the “ideal”

articulate their “ideal net

members. The PARTNER tool

pared to the defined “ideal

network are articulated. In

work” using discussions and

automates data collection

network”. The PARTNER

order to make the PARTNER

exercises. This includes

and analysis and allows the

tool has a simplified and

data more useful for

defining what success

user to repeat and replicate

targeted menu of analysis

practitioners, the PARTNER

means for the group, who

the social network analysis

options. This has resonated

team has developed a

should be a member, the

process without having to

strongly with practitioners,

Quality Improvement (QI)

ideal role for each mem-

hire an outside analyst.

who prefer to perform the

methodology that guides

data analysis on their own.

users from data collection

ber, and the resources members can contribute.

through development of targeted action steps for performance improvement.

PARTNERTOOL.NET

SEE WHICH ORGANIZATIONS ARE CONNECTED TO EACHOTHER Business OWNER SALVATION ARMY

IDENTIFY HOW THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT IS EMBEDDED IN THE COMMUNITY

JOB TRAINING PROGRAM DEPT OF HOUSING

HOMELESS SHELTER

MEASURE THE QUALITY OF THESE CONNECTIONS PUBLIC HEALTH

CATHOLIC CHARITIES

LAW ENFORCEMENT DRUG/ALCOHOL CLINIC

POLITICIAN

STRATEGIZE HOW TO STRENGTHEN TIES, FILL GAPS & INCREASE EFFICIENCY

FIGURE 1: NETWORK MAP CREATED WITH PARTNER TOOL

PARTNER VALUE The benefits of using the PARTNER tool to conduct a social network analysis are well-established, with more than 250 communities successfully administering the PARTNER tool in their communities and using the automated analysis tool to perform a network analysis. ӹӹ Evaluating how well a collaborative is working in terms of identifying essential and additional partners, leveraging re sources, and strategizing for how to improve the work of the collaborative ӹӹ Demonstrating to partners, stakeholders, evaluators, and funders how a collaborative is progressing over time and why working together is making tangible change. ӹӹ Producing network maps, benchmark measures, and reporting options. An example of a network map is displayed above.

In 2013, the PARTNER tool had 464 new users The number of new PARTNER users has increased 419% since 2009

PARTNERTOOL.NET

PARTNER use is at an alltime high and continues to grow PARTNER has been used by over 250 communities in 49 states and 29 countries

partner users PARTNER was created in 2007, with a grant from the Robert Wood

The top users in the United Sates are in Colorado, California,

Johnson Foundation. As of 2013, PARTNER has been used by over

New York, North Carolina. Texas, Massachusetts, Michigan, Florida,

250 communities and there are two times that many communi-

Ohio, Washington, New Hampshire, Georgia, Washington D.C.,

ties in the process of using the tool.

Kansas, and Illinois.

To date, more than 600 people have registered to use the

Countries that use PARTNER include: Canada, UK, Australia, Brazil,

PARTNER tool, with the largest growth in the last two years.

Chile, China, Columbia, France, Germany, Greece, Netherlands,

The number of new users who registered to use PARTNER and

India, Kenya, Netherlands, Norway, Puerto Rico, Russia, Malaysia,

the number of surveys created for implementation (called

Philippines, Rwanda, South Africa, Spain, Uganda, United Arab

Collaboratives) have increased 419% since 2009 and contin-

Emirates, Venezuela, Argentina, Bangladesh, Belarus, and

ues to rise.

Cameroon.

40-50+ USERS

10-20 USERS

20-40 USERS

<10 USERS

HEAVY USE IN THE UNITED STATES REGISTERED PARTNER USERS AROUND THE WORLD

PARTNER tool The PARTNER tool is designed for practitioners. It is the most user-friendly, affordable tool on the market that has the ability to link a network survey to the analysis. This feature makes the PARTNER tool uniquely beneficial to the practice community. Only one other tool exists that links a social network survey to the analysis tool. However, it is offered at a prohibitively high cost and is not as user friendly as PARTNER tool.

PARTNER COMMUNITY PARTNER is particularly useful for community-based collaborations. The PARTNER tool has a specific focus on community collaborations (coalitions based within a community made up of inter-organizational networks) and a foundational focus on health system and public health issues. It is used by hundreds of community-based collaborations has provided extensive external validity to both the survey and the tool. Users say this tool is the only one that is designed specifically for their needs.

PARTNER TRAINING The PARTNER team has developed a “train the trainer” program to teach organizations how to implement an SNA for quality improvement. The PARTNER tool is used by a growing number of evaluators, many of whom do not have prior experience with SNA. We offer a certification that allows evaluators to improve their competencies in this field to better serve their clients. Finally, together with the Research Program on Collaborative Governance, the PARTNER team provides a “Network Leadership Training Academy” that focuses on training practitioners to develop, evaluate, and manage effective networks.

PARTNER QUALITY PARTNER employs a multi-pronged Quality Improvement (QI) methodology that uses PARTNER tool as a component to improve collaborations. While collecting network data is useful for many communities, it is not clear how they should translate this into practice. In order to make the PARTNER data more useful for practitioners, the PARTNER team has developed a Quality Improvement methodology that guides users from collecting data through using it to develop a set of action steps for performance improvement.

PARTNERTOOL.NET

The PARTNER Dataset is the largest available whole-network dataset on public health collaboratives There are a high concentration of public health collaboratives using the PARTNER tool, resulting in valuable data for Public Health Services Research and other health focused research. The Spring 2013 data set contains a total of 173 (N=173) whole network collaboratives, more than 7,000 organizations and 20,000 dyadic ties (see Appendix A for a list if publications related to PARTNER). The PARTNER team has spent more than 150 hours cleaning and organizing this database. The database is the largest whole-network dataset collected using survey research. We believe this database has the potential to significantly impact the way that we can answer questions about community collaboratives.

PARTNER STANDS OUT AMONG THE COMPETITION The market for social network analysis tools fall into a very niche type of product. Many tools are available (www.insna.org/software) and developed in an open-source environment. A few tools stand out as more prominent than others including UCINET, Pajek, Netminer, NodeXL, and Sienna. The R program also has a social network package available. While all of these tools are reputable and widely used, they are distinctly different from PARTNER. PARTNER is a unique program of options for the practitioner to aid in the enhancement of work in collaboration and coalition building.

PARTNER users describe the tool as valuable to their work The tool is primarily used to: ӹӹ track collaborations;

“ PA RT N E R tool allowed our team to easily survey, analyze, and communicate the findings of our collaborative assessment. We discovered our strengths and identified key areas for improvement. We found relatively high levels of collaboration among our community partners, and were also able to identify where ties could be strengthened to benefit not only the garden program but the surrounding community as well.”

ӹӹ plan future work and activities; ӹӹ for a capstone or school project; ӹӹ for grant-funded work; ӹӹ to manage current work (building collaborations); ӹӹ for network analysis/evaluation of network effectiveness;

55% Users who report that the ability to collect networkwide data to ASSESS THE quality/ strength of relationships as the most significant benefit of the PARTNER tool.

ӹӹ and as a tool/resource for measuring collaborations. Other significant benefits include: Coordinated Online Survey and Data Collection (37.37%), Accessible and Easy to Use (34.34%), Maps of the Network/Visualizations (28.28%), Technical Assistance/Online Resources (16.16%), Misc. (16.16%), Free (15.15%), Helps Form Strategic Action Steps (Quality Improvement Tool) (15.15%), Evaluation (6.06%), and Identify Key Players (3.03%).

41% Users (SINCE JAN 2012) who were TO PARTBER BY a colleague, supervisor, professor, friend, or community partner.

PARTNER

PARTNER STRATEGY How does data inform system building? How does it inform quality improvement? And how can data be used as evidence for decision making and improved coalition performance? Since its inception,

In 2010, Ms. Varda was awarded a second grant from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation’s Office of Public Health to enhance and expand the use of PARTNER among public health departments around the country.

the PARTNER team has assisted users in answering

With the funding, she was able to expand the PARTNER

these questions. This methodology utilizes the mea-

team to work on both the technical and academic sides

sures produced from PARTNER to guide users to the

of PARTNER.

next step – translating data into practice through targeted action steps.

The results have been significant, with both enhancements to the PARTNER tool and website, a large and

In 2008, Danielle Varda et al. (2008) designed the

growing community of users, and several journal

PARTNER tool to focus on measuring the process of

publications in print. In 2012, the RWJF once again

collaboration, particularly the social infrastructure

awarded Varda a grant to support the continued use

of interactions between involved members of health

of PARTNER by the public health sector, and to create

coalitions, by measuring connectivity. In 2009, PARTNER

a sustainability plan for the long term.

went “online”, reprogrammed as an online database management and survey tool. As a result of a partnership between Varda and Richard Osborne (UCD Computer Science, Senior Lecturer), a group of students took on PARTNER in the Spring of 2009 as their Senior Project. The work they did on PARTNER was estimated to be worth approximately $65,000. They successfully made PARTNER more sophisticated and user friendly for a very broad audience.

PARTNERTOOL.NET

pARTNER TEAM PARTNER is in high demand throughout the country. In a three year period, the PARTNER team has held more than 55 in-person presentations and more than 70 phone conferences with organizations that are interested in using PARTNER. PARTNER tool users require substantial

are held regularly for new and potential

approach. Many users have hired the

technical support. E-mail communications

PARTNER users. Increased interest after

PARTNER team to help them engage in

with past, current, and future PARTNER

our outreach efforts necessitated an in-

a more comprehensive process to use

users can range from 30 -80 e-mails

creased in the frequency of Live PARTNER

the data to improve their coalition work.

each week. The PARTNER team spends

demonstrations. Attendance at live dem-

In 2013, this type of work accounted for

approximately 15-20 hours per week on

onstrations has increased from an aver-

about 50% of the PARTNER team’s time

user support alone. The majority of these

age of four to more than 15 attendees

(shown in Table 1 as “special projects” and

meetings are with potential users to dis-

each month. Table 1 outlines the hours

“assisting in quality improvement meth-

cuss conceptual or technical aspects of

spent on the weekly activities required to

odology implementation”).

the tool in the context of their specific

adequately maintain PARTNER operations.

project ideas.

Other users need only moderate levels Demand for in-depth client consultations

of assistance with troubleshooting sur-

The PARTNER team provides support to

has risen sharply over the past year. The

vey issues, loading and reading the data,

newly registered users through regular

PARTNER team assists contracted clients

and some help with dissemination of the

contact and monthly live web demon-

in translating their data into practice,

results.

strations. Live, in-person demonstrations

primarily using a quality improvement

STAFF

ACTIVITY

HOURS PER WEEK

Technical Improvements and Resource Development

Outreach/ Education/ Presentations

Account Maintenance and User Tracking

Technical Support Provided to Users

Data Cleaning/Management/Analysis

and is the primary trainer in the QI methodology developed by

Website Maintenance

directing outreach/education/presentations, special projects,

Special Projects

Consulting on QI Methodology Implementation

PARTNER tasks are completed by three core staff on the PARTNER team. Project Director (.35 FTE) for PARTNER is Dr. Danielle Varda. She is the creator of the PARTNER tool and manages the PARTNER team and all PARTNER-related activities. The Project Manager (1 FTE) is responsible for technical improvement, resource development, account maintenance, user tracking, and providing technical support to users. The Project Manager also assists users with data analysis, works on special projects, the team. The Lead Analyst/QI Expert (1 FTE) is responsible for data analysis, and consulting on the QI methodologies. Two additional part-time (.25 FTE) positions are filled to complete additional tasks. These include a Data Manager to clean, manage, and analyze the PARTNER dataset and the Programmer to maintain and enhance the online PARTNER tool. A web development firm (.15 FTE) is responsible for website maintenance, updates, security, and content.

PARTNER

FINANCES

PLANNED REVENUE TRAINING

5% 10%

15%

PARTNER has relied in its entirety on the generous re-

CONTRACTS

sources from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and the University of Colorado Denver. Maintaining

30%

20%

PARTNER will require a diversified funding portfolio 20%

infrastructure support.

USER FEES

RESEARCH CONTRACTS IN-KIND

made up of user fees, in-kind support, research grants, contracts/fee-for-service/evaluation, trainings, and core

INFRASTRUCTURE

USER FEES

It is the core goal of

Users will self-identify (as professional organizations do) into

PARTNER to be a tool

one of the following groups:

that is readily and reasonably accessible for the practice community. We do not expect this to be a large revenue source,

but a symbolic source – we believe that investment in the tool develops more support and commitment to the tool’s success. Beginning September 1, 2013, fees will be collected when a user registers to use PARTNER. These are suggested fees. No user will be turned away because they are unable to pay.

ӹӹ Students: $50 ӹӹ Government, University, Nonprofits: $150 ӹӹ Corporations (includes evaluators) with >$100K operating budget: $250 ӹӹ Corporations (includes evaluators) with < $100K operating budget: $350 ӹӹ Granting agencies requiring grantees to use PARTNER: $100 per grantee These fees will cover a one year, unlimited # of surveys, basic technical assistance from the PARTNER team, and use of the PARTNER tool/resources. Any additional TA over the basic assistance in using the tool (e.g. help analyzing or translating the data) will require an additional fee.

We anticipate that

from throughout HHS. While it would be impossible to track

INFRASTRUCTURE

many of PARTNER’s

down who funds each user, we are hopeful that the agencies

current and future

will recognize the value and potential of offering PARTNER to

users will have re-

users at minimal cost.

30%

sources to pay only minimal user and

Core infrastructure funding must be maintained in order to

technical assistance

support these growing needs. We are seeking between $15K

fees. For this reason, core infrastructure support is critical to

and $50K per year from our national and state partners. These

maintain these services. We estimate that more than 20% of our

funds will support operational costs to run PARTNER.

users have funding from the CDC, and an additional 10% come

RESEARCH GRANTS

Contracts & fees

IN-KIND SUPPORT

20%

25%

15%

The PARTNER team has an active re-

The fastest growing area for PARTNER

Currently, the School of Public Affairs at

search agenda. Data collected from

revenue is the contract, fee-for-service,

the University of Colorado, Denver pro-

throughout the country is used to an-

and evaluation work. Agencies and or-

vides two sources of in-kind support,

swer many key questions about collab-

ganizations from around the world, from

estimated at a value of $30,000 per year:

oratives. As a result of this work, several

all sectors, are contacting the PARTNER

research grants have been awarded. The

team requesting aid in implementing,

PARTNER team plans to continue this

analyzing and translating PARTNER

work, adding to the knowledge of col-

results. Contracts range from $4K to

laboratives, resulting in the dissemina-

$108K, depending on the scope of

tion of critical information for both the

work. Increasingly, clients are asking us

academic and practitioner.

to implement QI methods to help them

Varda as a member of the PARTNER

assess their work and create action plans

team.

to improve their processes.

ำนำน

PARTNER office space, which includes a 100 square foot office space in Downtown Denver, internet, email, conference/meeting space, and printing.

ำนำน

PhD student, .25 FTE, to work for Dr.

PARTNER

PARTNERING FOR THE FUTURE

ON THE HORIZON Building the PARTNER Training and Certification Program A growing number of PARTNER users are evalua-

In order for evaluators and practitioners to be proficient in us-

tors. Evaluators are most often paid for their eval-

ing PARTNER (especially as a paid service), these users should

u a t i o n w o r k , a n d t h ey a r e c u r r e n t l y a cce s s i n g

become more skilled in using PARTNER by attending trainings

PARTNER for their work. These evaluators increasingly need

and qualifying for certifications. In response, the PARTNER team

assistance with analyzing and translating the data into practice.

is developing a set of trainings and are designing a menu of certification options.

TRAINING

10%

This as a source of revenue will take some time to develop (what will the trainings entail, what will be required to be â&#x20AC;&#x153;certifiedâ&#x20AC;?, how we will deliver the training?). We anticipate this area to grow over time with a solid curriculum and delivery in place by YR 2. Expected revenues are accounted for in Yr 3 and 4.

PARTNERTOOL.NET

PLANNED REVENUE 2014

2015 2015 In Kind

2014 In Kind 9%

Core Infrastructure Support 40%

Fees 2%

Fees 1%

Core Infrastructure Support 40%

Research Grants 28% Contracts (Fee for Service/ Evalua@on) 20%

Training / Cer@ﬁca@ons 2%

2016

Research Grants 27% Contracts (Fee for Service/ Evalua?on) 19%

Training / Cer?ﬁca?ons 3%

2017 2016

Core Infrastructure Support 38%

2017

In Kind 9% Fees 2%

Core Infrastructure Support 37%

Research Grants 27% Contracts (Fee for Service/ Evalua?on) 20%

Training / Cer?ﬁca?ons 4%

2017

In Kind 9% Fees 3% Research Grants 26% Contracts (Fee for Service/ Evalua@on) 21%

Training / Cer@ﬁca@ons 4%

2014-2018 2018 In Kind 8% Core Infrastructure Support 36% Training / Cer@ﬁca@ons 6%

In Kind 9%

Fees 3% Research Grants 26%

TOTAL REVENUES PARTNER 2014-‐2018 Fees 2% Core Infrastructure Support 38%

Contracts (Fee for Service/ Evalua@on) 21%

Training / Cer?ﬁca?ons 4%

Research Grants 27% Contracts (Fee for Service/ Evalua?on) 20%

PARTNER

Planned budget In- Kind CONTRIBUTIONS

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Data Manager

$18,200.00

$18,746.00

$19,308.38

$19,887.63

$20,484.26

$21,098.79

Rent

$12,000.00

$30,200.00

$30,746.00

$31,308.38

$31,887.63

$32,484.26

$30,200.00

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

$2,500.00

$6,200.00

$8,000.00

$10,000.00

$131,037.00

$90,000.00

$92,000.00

$31,778.00

$65,000.00

$70,000.00

$75,000.00

$6,000.00

$10,000.00

$12,000.00

$15,000.00

$20,000.00

$96,702.00

$132,000.00

$130,000.00

TOTAL IN-KIND

REVENUE Fees Research Grants Fee- for- Service/Evaluation Training /Certifications Core Infrastructure Support

Total Revenues

$259,517.00 $295,500.00 $303,200.00

$314,000.00 $322,000.00 $327,000.00

140000 $140,000 120000 120,000 Fees

100000 100,000

Research Grants

80000 80,000

Fee for Service

60,000 60000

Training /Cer>ﬁca>ons

40,000 40000

Core Infrastructure Support

20,000 20000 0 0

1 2013

2 2014

3 2015

4 2016

5 2017

6 2018

PARTNERTOOL.NET

PERSONNEL & FRINGE (29%)

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Director (.35 FTE)

$35,585.09

$36,652.64

$37,752.22

$38,884.79

$40,051.33

$41,252.87

Analyst/QI Specialist (1 FTE)

$90,300.00

$93,009.00

$95,799.27

$98,673.25

$101,633.45

$104,682.45

Project Manager (1 FTE)

$70,950.00

$73,078.50

$75,270.86

$77,528.98

$79,854.85

$82,250.50

$202,740.14 $208,822.34

$215,087.02

$221,539.63

$228,185.81

Subtotal

PROGRAM COSTS

$196,835.09

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

Software Programmer

$27,500.00

Website Support/ Security

$12,000.00

Office Supplies

$500.00

Phone charges 2 lines

$540.00

Postage

$50.00

Express Mail Services

$50.00

$2,500.00

IT share access 3

$360.00

Software - SPSS & MS

$500.00

Professional Development

$500.00

Printing/Copies

$250.00

Conference Calling

$400.00

$50.00

Subtotal

$45,200.00

$42,700.00

$45,200.00

$42,700.00

INDIRECT COSTS (20%)

$48,407.02

$49,088.03

$50,304.47

$52,057.40

$52,847.93

$54,177.16

$290,442.11

$294,528.17

$301,826.81

$312,344.42

$317,087.55

$325,062.98

$(30,925.11)

$971.83

$1,373.19

$1,655.58

$4,912.45

$1,937.02

IT equipment

MISC - Staff IDs, signage

TOTAL EXPENSES DIFERENCE

PARTNER

APPENDIX A Publications Related to PARTNER ӹӹ

Varda, D. and A. Talmi, (2013) " A Patient-Centered Systems of Care for Children with Special Health-

Journal of Public Health Management and Practice,

care Needs,” Frontiers in Public Health Services and

17(2), 122-132. http://www.rwjf.org/coverage/

Systems Research: Forthcoming Jan 2013. Available

product.jsp?id=72816 Varda, Danielle M., Anita Chandra, Stefanie Stern, and Nicole Lurie (2008). “Core Dimensions of Con-

Influence of Teaching Methodology on Student

nectivity in Public Health Collaboratives” Journal of

Social Interaction", Journal of Public Affairs Educa-

Public Health Management and Practice, 14(5): E1-E7.

Varda, Danielle M. and Jessica H. Retrum. (2012). "An Exploratory Analysis of Network Characteristics and Quality of Interactions Among Public Health Collaboratives". Journal of Public Health Research. 1(2).

ӹӹ

Varda, D.M., J.H. Retrum, and K.Kuenzi. (2012). "The

tion 18(4), 633-660. ӹӹ

Varda, Danielle M. (2011). “Data-Driven Management Strategies in Public Health Collaboratives”,

at: http://uknowledge.uky.edu/frontiersinphssr/. ӹӹ

ӹӹ

Approach for Evaluating Public Health Roles within

Varda, Danielle M., Jo Ann Shoup, and Sara E Miller. (2012). “A systematic review of collaboration and network research in the public affairs literature: implications for public health practice and research.”, American Journal of Public Health, 102(3):564-7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22021311

PARTNER

WWW.PARTNERTool.NET Danielle M. Varda | Assistant Professor Director, Research Program on Collaborative Governance University of Colorado Denver, School of Public Affairs 1380 Lawrence St, #500 Denver, CO 80204  Phone: 303-315-2129 eMail: Danielle.Varda@ucdenver.edu