Issues of collaboration and partnerships have become key areas of research in the tourism literature in the past two decades (Jamal and Getz, 1995, 1997, 2000; Bramwell and Sharman, 1999; Hall, 2000; Parker, 2000; Moisey and McCool, 2001; Ritchie and Crouch, 2003; Getz and Timur, 2005). They have been linked to sustainable tourism (Bramwell and Lane, 1999; Hall, 2000; Selin, 1999) and to integration and participation (Mitchell and Reid, 2001; Tosun, 2000). The recognition of numerous problems arising in tourism development due to the lack of co-ordination and cohesion among the vast number of players in the tourism industry has brought with it the need for finding ways of bringing the ‘interested parties’ together. The tourism industry is characterised by a plethora of actors, with different interests and values. It is therefore, an enormous challenge to try and persuade these individuals and organisations to sit down together and work towards a mutually accepted solution.
The tourism literature utilises the developments in other domains to address the issues of collaboration. In the field of organisational theory, Gray (1989) looks into the possible ways and benefits of working together to achieve such solutions. As a starting point, she proposes to differentiate between the terms co-operation, co-ordination and collaboration, all of which describe some form of working on a common problem. “Coordination means formal institutionalized relationships among existing networks of organisations.” (Gray, 1989:15) Cooperation is characterised by “informal trade-offs” (Gray: 1989:15), and
“joint operation or action” according to the Collins Concise Dictionary, 2001, is a process where no set rules are involved. Gray suggests that both co-operation and co-ordination are often part of the collaboration process, “in which those parties with a stake in the problem actively seek a mutually determined solution. They join forces, pool information, knock heads, construct alternative solutions, and forge an agreement.”
(1989: xviii) Nevertheless, this definition does not capture the possible differences in interest and values of those collaborating. Recognising this lack, she goes on to elaborate the definition so that it allows for the participants to have differing views and stakes:
“Collaboration is a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem
can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited vision of what is possible.” (Gray, 1989:5) It must be emphasised, however, that collaboration is just a process and not an instant solution, it only provides a framework to approach a problem and seek solutions.
Gray argues that there are certain situations where collaboration offers a better framework for tackling the problem than other methods of decision-making. The following are examples of cases when collaboration could be considered as the ideal method:
• Several stakeholders have a vested interest in the problems and are interdependent
• These stakeholders are not necessarily identified a priori or organized in any systematic way
• There may be a disparity of power and/or resources for dealing with the problems among the stakeholders
• Stakeholders may have different level of expertise and different access to information about the problems
• Differing perspectives on the problems often lead to adversarial relationships among stakeholders (1989:10)
Gray identifies three distinctive phases in the collaborative process, although as Parker (2000:88) suggests the “movement from one phase to the next does not necessarily require prior closure during the earlier phase”. These phases are as follows:
Phase 1: Problem setting
• Common definition of the problem
• Commitment to collaborate
• Identification of stakeholders
• Legitimacy of stakeholders
• Convener characteristics
• Identification of resources
Phase 2: Direction setting
• Establishing ground rules
• Agenda setting
• Organizing subgroups
• Joint information search
• Exploring options
• Reaching agreement and closing the deal
Phase 3: Implementation
• Dealing with constituencies
• Building external support
• Structuring
• Monitoring the agreement and ensuring compliance (Gray, 1989:57)
The elements of the phases will be addressed in more detail later in the chapter.
Forms of collaboration
Selin and Chavez (1995) see partnerships as ideal collaborative arrangements.
Partnership in their case is understood (based on Gray’s (1985) definition) as “voluntary pooling of resources (labor, money, information, etc.) between two or more parties to accomplish collaborative goals” (1995:845). Selin and Chavez refer to a continuum of possible partnership arrangements with only brief interactions at one end to a highly structured collaborative organisation at the other. Their ‘Evolutionary Model of Tourism Partnerships’ utilises Gray’s theory to the extent of using Gray’s own words in the model (see Gray’s phases of the collaboration process). The similarities suggest that partnership and collaboration are to be used as identical categories in Selin and Chavez’s work.
Figure 3.1: An evolutionary model of tourism partnerships (adapted from Selin and Chavez, 1995:848)
Hall (1999) and (2000) acknowledges that the notions of collaboration, co-ordination and partnership are separate but closely related ideas. He suggests that the willingness to collaborate and co-operate will result in the formulation of some sort of networks between the partners involved, where networks are defined as “the development of linkages between actors (organisations and individuals) where linkages become more formalised towards maintaining mutual interests” (Hall, 2000:145). He argues that the linkages will range from ‘loose linkages’ to ‘structural agreements’. Hall refers to Mandell’s (1999) continuum of collaborative efforts that suggests 6 stages can be identified:
• Linkages or interactive contacts between two or more actors;
• Intermittent coordination or mutual adjustment of the policies and procedures of two or more actors to accomplish some objective;
• Ad hoc or temporary task force activity among actors to accomplish a purpose or purposes;
• Permanent and/or regular coordination between two or more actors through a formal arrangement (e.g. a council or partnership) to engage in limited activity to achieve a purpose or purposes;
• A coalition where interdependent and strategic actions are taken, but where purposes are narrow in scope and all actions occur within the participant actors themselves or involve the mutually sequential or simultaneous activity of the participant actors; and
• A collective or network structure where there is broad mission and joint and strategically interdependent action. Such structural arrangements take on board tasks that reach beyond the simultaneous actions of independently operating actors.
(Hall, 2000:145)
Trist (1983) makes a distinction between ‘centred’ and ‘networked’ collaborative design.
The centred arrangement is characterised by an institutionalised structure of interaction between the collaborating parties, while the networked model is much less structural and is characterised by informal and/or ad hoc interactions.
Although Selin and Chavez claim to have discovered the ideal tourism partnership model, there is no general collaborative design that is successful in all circumstances and with all kinds of collaborative partners. In practice, collaboration between the parties very often occurs through overlapping membership or joint participation, without the existence of an umbrella organisation deliberately designed for collaborative purposes (Parker, 2000).
Once the players have been identified, Ladkin and Bertramini (2002:75) suggest that
“one of the most important challenges is building trust between the actors and a recognition that there is a shared problem ….. a joint formulation of aims and objectives on the plan for tourism development should be undertaken at the outset. It is the willingness to strive for a ‘common good’ that is an essential precondition to the development of a collaborative approach.”
Elements of the phases of collaboration
As mentioned earlier, the phases of the collaborative process need to be looked at in more depth. From the perspectives of stakeholder theory and of the modern power theories, Phase one: Problem setting is most crucial. This is the stage where the desire to collaborate is expressed, and where the legitimate stakeholders are identified.
Stakeholders in collaboration theory are defined to “include all individuals, groups or organisations that are directly influenced by actions others take to solve the problem.”
(Gray, 1989:5) A similar problem arises with this definition to that we have seen with the first definition of collaboration: it looks at certain aspects of the issue and but fails to consider some others. For example, the above definition of stakeholders stresses the
‘affected by’ element of the stakeholder approach rather then the ‘interested in’ factor, which seems to form an at least as important if not more important part of most stakeholder definitions (Freeman, 1984; Hill and Jones, 1992; Donaldson and Preston, 1995; Carroll, 1996). These issues lie at the heart of this study and will be examined in greater detail in the following chapter. However, this may be Gray’s way of developing a theory: starting with a basic statement and incorporating new aspects into it with the development of the thought process. She enriches the definition with the claim that the actors who she regards as stakeholders will also have an interest in a common problem.
As far as stakeholders are concerned, one could argue that if the relevant persons and/or organisations with a stake in the problem are not identified at the beginning, the failure of the collaboration process is most predictable. It is also necessary to examine if the stakeholders participating in the process represent the affected stakeholders adequately (Boiko et al., 1996). If the collaborating stakeholders do not represent all the affected stakeholders, some needs and interests may not be expressed and therefore, related alternatives might be ignored. It can also lead to the excluded stakeholders rejecting the proposals. (Gregory and Keeney, 1994)
In the first phase, a diverse set of stakeholders will be identified, with the expectation that they all hold some but not all of the necessary resources. Stakeholders enter the collaboration process not only with different resources but also with a varying degree of power, therefore are likely to have different expectations as to what the outcome of the collaboration should be. “Each stakeholder has a unique appreciation of the problem.”
(Gray, 1989:5)
As one of Gray’s more elaborate definitions suggests, collaboration is about shared responsibility and shared power, therefore stakeholders have to learn ‘strategies of mutual empowerment’ (1989:271). This definition shows more than healthy optimism:
real-life examples will not be likely to testify sharing power. Nevertheless, she recognises that if power imbalances are perceived by the would-be collaborative partners, collaboration may not take place at all. “There may be circumstances in which stakeholders are unable or unwilling to engage each other in this way. […] When one party has unchallenged power to influence the domain, collaboration does not make sense.” (Gray, 1989:24) Clegg and Hardy claim that a different scenario may also arise from power imbalances, where collaboration is achieved in rhetoric but nothing indicates
‘shared power’ or ‘mutual empowerment’. “We cannot ignore that power can be hidden behind the façade of “trust” and the rhetoric of “collaboration”, and used to promote vested interest through the manipulation of and capitulation by weaker partners” (Clegg and Hardy, 1996:678). Reed (1997:567) argues that “While power relations are included within collaborative theory, it is frequently assumed that collaboration can overcome power imbalances by involving all stakeholders in a process that meets their needs.”
Bramwell and Sharman (1999:394) suggest that Reed firmly believes “such power differences among stakeholders actually are so embedded in society that they always affect the nature of the collaboration”.
Phase 2: Direction setting is the stage in the collaboration process, where the ground rules are established, an agenda is agreed and agreements are reached. The decisions made in this phase reveal whether the relevant stakeholders have been identified and the potential power imbalances between them have been dealt with. If the agenda features actions that seem to favour the interests of dominant groups and/or ignore those of others with a less significant voice it can be assumed that the relative power of the stakeholder groups has not been neutralised (Getz and Timur, 2005).
Although Phase 3: Implementation is an integral part of the collaboration process, it is usually overseen. Case studies (Sweeting, 2006) in general do not offer an insight into
how the decisions made during the collaborative process are implemented, or even into what happens to the collaboration at all after its organisational structure has been established.
Even if one phase of the process enjoys more attention than others, nobody should argue the usefulness of collaboration as an aid to development processes. However, only if all relevant stakeholders, adequately representing all affected and interested stakeholders are identified as collaborative partners, and there are no major power-imbalances between the actors, will the benefits of collaboration be available for all concerned to enjoy. These benefits, according to Gray, are the following:
• The process ensures that each stakeholder’s interests are considered in any agreement
• Parties most familiar with the problem invent their solutions
• Participation enhances acceptance of solution and willingness to implement it
• Relations between the stakeholders improve
• Mechanisms for coordinating future actions among the stakeholders can be established (1989:21)
Collaboration in the tourism literature
Collaboration has become one of the new buzz-words in the tourism literature, especially in the texts looking at (sustainable) tourism planning. The idea of creating links with stakeholders is not new though, Murphy (1985) emphasised the importance of the involvement of the local community in tourism management, and Gunn (1994) widens the circle and proposes that various ‘interested’ groups from the public and the private sector take part in the planning process. Authors in the tourism field have looked at how Gray’s work can be applied within the tourism context (Getz and Jamal, 1994; Jamal and Getz, 1995; Williams, Penrose and Hawkes, 1998; Bramwell and Sharman, 1999; Hall, 2000; Parker, 2000).
Jamal and Getz (1995:188) define collaborative planning in tourism as a “process of joint decision-making among autonomous, key stakeholders… to resolve planning problems…
and/or to manage issues related to the planning and development”.
Collaborative planning in tourist destinations is usually considered to involve direct dialogue among participating stakeholders, including the public sector planners, and this has the potential to lead to negotiation, shared decision-making and consensus-building about planning goals and actions (Bramwell and Sharman, 1999). Wahab and Pigram (1998:283) also contribute to the argument, suggesting that sustainable tourism requires that “the planning, development and operation of tourism should be cross-sectional and integrated, involving various government departments, public and private sector companies, community groups and experts, thus providing the widest possible safeguards for success”. The above statements again depict an ideal situation, which unfortunately is far from what reality has on offer. De Araujo and Bramwell (2000:274) prove to be more realistic and acknowledge that “participation in tourism planning in destinations can be limited to collecting public opinions of stakeholders in order to provide fuller information to public sector planners, and this can be a largely one-way consultation process when there is little direct dialogue between the stakeholders and planners.”
One of the key issues in Gray’s theory regards the identification of all the relevant stakeholders. Identification and representation are equally important in tourism collaboration, and the implications are also the same. “It is very difficult to make overall statements about whether the range of the stakeholders involved in the planning process was representative of the stakeholders affected by a project. For example, how does one decide what is an appropriate balance between stakeholders with interests focused at national, regional and local geographical scales, particularly in the broader context of sustainable development? (Yuksel et al, 1999). Similarly, what is an appropriate balance between stakeholders whose concerns are focused on economic and environmental issues?" (de Araujo and Bramwell, 2000:292)
As case studies (Bahaire and Elliot-White, 1999; Williams, Penrose and Hawkes, 1998) suggest, the collaborative attempts are characterised by the dominance of public sector
stakeholders, therefore the ‘appropriate balance’ is far from achieved. No one would question the importance of public sector, especially local authority representatives in collaboration processes, as it is usually they who initiate and foster collaboration in the first place. Gray (1989) also emphasises the role of local officials in identifying and focusing on issues that need to be addressed, in facilitating the sharing of information as well as the development of consensus on the community vision and in ratifying the emergent consensus through legislative action. The question for tourism collaborations is whether the public sector can become independent partners in the collaboration. Reed (1997:569) observed that “reliance on local authorities to convene power relations assumes these authorities will be neutral arbiters. Yet, political theorists have demonstrated that governance institutions have their own agendas in the formulation and implementation of policy.” Pearce (1998) demonstrated the significance and centrality of public sector interventions in his study of Paris. Further, as Elliott’s study of the Tourism Authority of Thailand pointed out Board Members “are extremely busy people and their first loyalty is to their own organisation. They are not in a position to initiate major new policies and they tend to accept the proposals of the Governor.” (Elliott 1983:385)
Leadership has also been identified in playing a critical role in developing partnerships, as a strong leader will act as a catalyst to bring the different interests together, “a strong-willed, enthusiastic person who […] would not take no for an answer” (Selin and Chavez, 1995:849). This echoes Gray’s comment that “A special breed of leaders is also needed if more systematic use of collaboration is to occur.” (Gray, 1989:279))
Although the initiative may most often come from the public sector, the importance of the private sector tourism organisations should not be underestimated. Tourism businesses are the providers of the 'products', the services that a destination depends on, therefore the industry's participation is vital for the collaborative process.
No one would argue against the role of the community in collaboration as this group includes people benefiting from tourism but also those who pay the costs (Getz and Timur, 2005). Admittedly, it is much easier a task to establish, who the participants are or
should be than to ensure the equality of their importance. Collaboration processes in the tourism arena have not provided an example of healthy balance of stakeholders yet.
Collaborative capacity
Reviewing contributions from Bramwell and Sharman (1999), de Araujo and Bramwell (1999), Simpson (2001) and Ladkin and Bertramini (2002), it is possible to suggest a range of benefits that can flow from successful collaborations. Collaboration reduces the likelihood of adversarial conflict by promoting efficiency, equity and harmony. Those involved in collaboration may feel a greater ownership of the process and therefore afford the outcomes greater legitimacy. Collaboration also adds value by building of the store of knowledge, insights, and capabilities amongst those involved. The object of collaboration is to produce a performance which is better in economic, community or sustainable terms than would have been likely without the collaboration. The idea is that collaboration allows for individuals and organisations to maximise their abilities in ways that pursuing their own self focussed agendas would not permit. This increase in capacity is seen as benefiting all those involved in the process as the actions of the whole become greater than the sum of the individual parts would be.
Advantages Disadvantages
Problems in identifying legitimate stakeholders (Reed, 1997)
Adheres to the concept of democracy and Agenda 21 thus legitimising activity (WTTC, 1996)
Limited capacity of stakeholders to participate (de Araujo and Bramwell, 1999)
Silent majority may not be heard (Tosun, 2000)
Table 3.1: Advantages and disadvantages of collaboration (Adapted from Aas et al, 2005:30–32)
It has also been observed that collaboration is affected by the setting. The contexts of social, cultural and political conditions will impact on the development of collaboration.
Tosun (2000) referred to these barriers to participation as being operational, structural
Tosun (2000) referred to these barriers to participation as being operational, structural