The 'partnership' concept has connotations of singularity of purpose, with mutual benefits being achieved over a relatively long-term association. In this context, 'partnership management' is considered distinct from the comparatively short-term nature and objectives of purely commercial transactions. PPPs, however, are framed in commercial terms, so the theory of partnership management is necessary for identifying what principles, processes and issues might arise for PPP projects. Understanding this places the development of an integrated management model on a firm theoretical base.
People form views or beliefs about what managers in organisations should do (Quinn et al 2007: p.2). These beliefs, within context of the study of management, are sometimes referred to as models and are characterisations of a more complex reality (Quinn et al 2007: p.2) - they can be useful for understanding, extrapolating and communicating complex ideas by applying them to real world situations. With this said, applying models to real phenomena can be a double-edged sword. We may select a certain model for a specific situation because we think that it will help us to achieve the best outcome. However, our preferences or biases in choosing one model over another may lead to un-intended consequences or even a poor outcome.
Management models are mental and social constructs. Quinn et al (2007: p.2) emphasise that due to shifts in social values, perceptions, practices, etc over time, new management models emerge. The 'Competing Values Framework' offered by Quinn et al (2007) is heavily influenced by four models that have been effective for managing aspects of organisational performance since the early 1900s. These models form four critical components of the Framework. Each is summarised as follows:
- Rational Goal Model (Quinn et al 2007: p.4). The drivers of success for this model are productivity and profit (in the case of PPP they may relate to a contractor's achievement of performance targets thus leading to VfM outcomes for government). It is predicated on the assumption that clear direction leads to productive outcomes. Clarity of goals, rational analysis and action-taking are important in achieving an organisation's 'bottom-line' (or VfM outcomes). Thus, the fundamental values of the Rational Goal Model are achievement and profit (or attainment of intended VfM). An example of decision-making that typifies this model could be the replacement of a long-standing service provider due to a sudden and significant drop in its performance or failure to consistently meet its performance targets over a period time.
- Internal Process Model (Quinn et al 2007: p.4). The effectiveness criteria for this model are stability and continuity. Its core assumption is that systemisation of work activities lead to organisational stability (e.g. predictable outcomes) and therefore places a premium on efficient workflow practices. The Internal Process Model emphasises the need for developing organisational processes e.g. clearly defining staff responsibilities, developing and using performance measures and the careful documentation of existing procedures. An example of decision-making that reflects this model is the increased application of organisational policies, frameworks and procedures for a public partner contract manager who is under-performing in his / her role.
- Human Relations Model (Quinn et al 2007: p.7). The central tenets of this model are commitment, cohesion and morale. The key assumption is that participation leads to organisational commitment. The values that relate to the model are involvement, conflict resolution and consensus building. It also emphasises the need for equality and openness. An example of decision-making in the application of the Human Relations Model is identifying and analysing the factors that have led a public partner contract manager to under-perform in the job and then mentoring and facilitating the improvement of his / her performance.
- Open Systems Model (Quinn et al 2007: p.8). The effectiveness criteria for the Open Systems Model are adaptability and external support which are critical for organisations that operate in responsive, fast moving environments. Its central assumption is that adaption and innovation leads to the acquisition and maintenance of external resources. The important values attached to this model are political adaptation, creative problem solving, innovation, and change management. A shared vision and common values are essential. An example that relates to this model is the willingness / ability of the public partner to act in a timely manner if critical infrastructure is damaged (which is beyond the control of the operator), for instance, due to the effects of a force majeure event. Here government may deploy its own resources temporarily as a step-in / containment measure for continuity purposes.
As implied, none of these models offer a 'one size fits all' solution. When working in complex operating environments, decision-makers need to tailor their approaches to meet specific circumstances - sometimes they may seek certainty, at other times they may require change. Quinn et al (2007: p.11) argue that it is an imperative to move beyond "either-or decisions" i.e. choosing between the two. They say that it is necessary to focus on "both-and assumptions", suggesting that both behaviours may be needed to suit a particular situation. They also state that these models are closely related and interconnected, meaning that they are considered to be four components of a larger construct of organisational effectiveness (although it may appear at face-value that each model conveys a conflicting message). It is this construct that the authors refer to as the 'Competing Values Framework'.
The Framework has two axes: the vertical axis ranges from flexibility to control and the horizontal from internal to external, with each model being assigned to the quadrant that relates to the appropriate central action focus - create for Open Systems, compete for Rational Goal, control for Internal Process and collaborate for Human Relations. The Competing Values Framework is represented diagrammatically in Fig. 4.1.
[Image removed due to copyright restrictions]
Fig. 4.1 Competing Values Framework: Effective Criteria (Source: Quinn et al 2007).
Each model, and each model segment, has a perceptual opposite. The Open Systems Model which is characterised by flexibility and an external focus contrasts sharply with the Internal Process Model that is defined by control and an internal focus (however, the two models can link effectively together, for example, through developing a scenario-based business continuity planning approach which may mean that the relevant plan may need only minor adjustments before or / and after its activation). The Rational Goal Model which is represented by control and an external focus is differentiated from the Human Relations Model in that it comprises flexibility and has an internal focus. The principles of these two models can also integrate e.g. under specific circumstances it may be preferable for operators to be given an opportunity to resolve operational lapses rather than the public partner applying abatement for all instances of under-performance to encourage and maintain positive working relationships.
Parallels between the models are also important (Quinn et al 2007: p.12). The Open Systems and Rational Goal models have an external focus. The application of common principles from both models could lead to the private partner being highly motivated by financial or commercial incentives offered by the public partner, for instance, to develop innovative practices for existing or new service delivery arrangements that are expected to lead to improved VfM outcomes, whereas the Open Systems and Human Relations models both emphasise flexibility. It is important, for example, for disputes that arise between public and private partners to be resolved as they can potentially lead to cost-overruns, service delivery under-performance, etc. Therefore the ability to adapt and to problem-solve can be critical in building consensus between partners and / or overcoming differences.
Other parallels exist. The Rational Goal and Internal Process models feature control. Contractual agreements, for example, stipulate that abatement will be applied for operator performance shortfalls and thus encourage consistent levels of service by operators. Such clauses set the direction, as well as specific performance accountabilities under service agreements, for private partner performance. The Internal Process and Human Relations models have an internal focus which may relate, for example, to the under-performance of a public partner contract manager i.e. failure to properly monitor service operator outputs. The employee's manager could thus assess the employee's level of capability and expertise against specified duties, up-skill the employee and review his / her effectiveness over time, with regard to role accountabilities and compliance with relevant organisational policies, frameworks and procedures.