Tuesday, March 13, 2007

MINNEAPOLIS LIBRARIES COULD COLLABORATE

Definitions
・ Coordination: The organization of efforts of different parties to reach a common goal. High-stakes issues are not often involved, and parties need not carry a relationship beyond the accomplishment of the task at hand. The goal is static.
Cooperation: A means to an end that involves gains and losses on the part of each participant. This can sometimes foster a competitive environment, and parties need not carry a relationship beyond the accomplishment of the task at hand. The goal is static.
Definitions
Collaboration: All parties work together and build consensus to reach a decision or create a product, the result of which benefits all parties. Competition is a nearly-insurmountable roadblock to collaboration, and the relationship among parties must continue beyond the accomplishment of the task in order to assure its viability. The goal is dynamic.
COLLABORATION
Cross institutional collaboration is an important and often undervalued and overlooked means of extending the reach and capacities of any given institution.
-Wikipedia
Comparison
The general definition of a team is an interdependent group, which suggests that collaborative groups are teams, coordinated groups are not, and cooperative groups may or may not be. Where do teams, partnerships, and joint ventures fit in this schema? Partnerships and joint ventures are both primarily cooperative undertakings, whose objectives evolve over time.
COMPARING PURPOSES

Coordination: Avoid gaps & overlap in individuals' assigned work
Cooperation: Obtain mutual benefit by sharing or partitioning work
Collaboration: Achieve combined results that the participants would be incapable of accomplishing by working alone
EXAMPLES
Coordination: Project to implement an IT application across the MPLS system or city
Cooperation: Summer reading program in the library, parks, school libraries
Collaboration: Discovery of a dramatically better way to deliver services; Co-creation
THE ENVIRONMENT
Collaboration is future directed
It comes about in a reform environment
It can link institutions and governments in new ways
It holds the promise of preventing dismantlement in hard times
It brings people to the table to create new solutions
MINNESOTA TRENDS
In 2003, the Association of Minnesota Counties retained the public affairs firm of Himle-Horner to assess critical issues for county government in Minnesota and assist in the formulation of recommendations for the future direction of county government.
Survey
Survey/Poll Himle Horner contracted with the Twin Cities survey firm Decision Resources, Ltd. to conduct a scientific random-sample statewide telephone survey of 800 Minnesotans. Decision Resources conducted the survey fieldwork/interviewing and compiled the data tables.
FINDINGS OF INTEREST TO MPLS
When asked to generally evaluate Minnesota's tax climate, only 23% supported an increase in taxes to improve government services, compared with 47% who felt Minnesota taxes were already too high. Asked to look specifically at property taxes raised by counties, only 10% preferred having counties increase property taxes in reaction to their current budget situations, compared to 16% who want services reduced and 59% who want counties to find new ways to deliver services.
Public Supports Finding New Ways to Deliver Services
Public Focused on Reform Rather than Cuts
Public wants changes in service delivery, not cuts in services.
Support exists for reprioritizing county functions within current budget
New Minnesota model is service reform
Public’s attitude is not a California tax revolution (for now).
Attitudes on Taxes Differ Geographically

No comments: