By Linda Olubajo, Business Development Manager, Knowledge Exchange at Edge Hill University
Everyone has something at work that they’re really passionate about, and mine is collaborative innovation. Having worked with academic researchers for most of my career I am continuously amazed and fascinated by the work that goes on in our universities, and importantly, how this reaches out beyond academia to generate real impact. From creating the greenhouses of the future that will aid food sustainability, to developing digital platforms that support children going through cancer treatment – it’s truly important work. But an academic can’t achieve this by working alone, it takes collaboration with external partners. Collaboration is therefore essential but it’s not always easy. So, I set out via a doctoral research project to understand how we can improve this unique type of collaboration.
Though collaboration between academics and businesses can be challenging different motivations, timescales, terminology, processes, levels of bureaucracy etc, those involving a third partner – clinicians – are even more complex, and so this is where I focused my attention, exploring three core elements: how these collaborations are formed, how to reduce or overcome barriers, and how to build and maintain positive relationships.
The formation process in these complex collaborations is, unsurprisingly, also complex. They form iteratively over many years, with new partners joining in response to evolving project needs. Individuals, rather than organisations, typically join as either advisors, service providers, or as new employees. Existing networks are crucial in identifying potential partners, and individuals are assessed based on their capabilities (discipline- and context-related) and access to necessary facilities, equipment, or patients. The preference generally is to work with people they know, though enthusiasm and being located geographically close also help. During formation, funding is key as it enables the buy-out of time from primary roles or for transactional services to be commissioned. The different elements of this formation process then influence the collaboration that follows. For example, seeking out individuals’ diverse capabilities creates roles and responsibilities that naturally align with partners’ specific capabilities, though this diversity can simultaneously lead to communication issues, especially when partners come from different organisational cultures or disciplines. Equally, balancing the project’s needs with other commitments –academic or clinical, for example – can affect levels of commitment and inhibit communications.
Exploring ways to reduce or overcome such challenges formed the second part of the study. The barriers emerging, such as difficulties finding partners, limited resources, partners’ differences (terminology, motivations, etc), bureaucracy, and contextual barriers (e.g., medical regulations, clinical commissioning), create two underlying forces. Some restrict project progress, whilst others repel partners and create a divide. The people involved in the collaborations and their characteristics are critical in countering these underlying forces. Propelling characteristics such as individuals’ motivations, driving behaviours (tenacity, determination), networks, and capabilities (e.g., regulatory expertise or experience of funding applications) counter restrictive barriers. Meanwhile, cohesive characteristics such as relational behaviours (friendly, curious, humble, respectful), and characteristics that create similarities between partners (e.g., previous experience of this type of collaboration, dual roles such as clinician-academic, or having moved between industry-academia-clinical environments in their career) counter the repelling forces. Interestingly, these characteristics can be activated by several mechanisms, including individuals’ roles within the collaboration (e.g., as fundraiser or academic advisor), via coordination and leadership, relational controls such as social norms, or staff orientation activities including site visits. Partners’ interpersonal relationships are also vitally important, not just in reducing and overcoming barriers, but in facilitating collaborative efforts more broadly.
The final part of the study therefore explored how relationships develop between partners. Relationships can be deconstructed to their component parts including trust, commitment, shared goals, communication, mutual respect and chemistry – referred to as relational drivers. Again, individuals’ characteristics are pivotal in enabling these relational drivers, and contribute in three ways. First, characteristics such as having worked together previously, similar demographics (e.g., heritage, age/stage of life, seniority), geographic closeness, and dual roles such as clinical-academic reduce the differences between partners, creating more similar goals, easier communications, and trust. Behavioural characteristics such as being friendly, respectful, curious, humorous, charismatic, determined, and tenacious create a more emotional connection between partners, which aids commitment and trust. Finally, characteristics such as individuals’ capabilities, seniority, and networks provide indicators of their credibility, which feed into the more economic-driven needs of relationships, supporting commitment and trust. Social interactions, such as personal conversations or interacting outside of the work environment, as well as staff orientation activities (site visits and exchanges), help to catalyse and strengthen interpersonal relationships.
This research provides valuable insights for fostering successful collaborations. Key takeaways include: the need to build and maintain networks to aid identification; greater consideration of behaviours and personalities when choosing partners given these characteristics are vital in overcoming barriers and building relationships; consideration of how formation decisions impact later dimensions of collaboration; greater investment in interpersonal relationships; and the ability to proactively leverage mechanisms that activate relevant characteristics or catalyse relationships.
