 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
mdiack
Member
| Joined: | Wed Sep 24th, 2008 |
| Country: | USA |
| Posts: | 2 |
| Country: | USA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#21 Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 18:31 |
|
What are characteristics of successful partnerships?
The two or three parties win. For this reason it is extremely important that realistic need assessments be conducted so that the needs and strengths of the partners be matched. This is as well important when the involved parties intend to seek external funding to operate.
|
Daniel Weiner
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 |
| Country: | Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 1 |
| Country: | USA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#22 Posted: Thu Oct 16th, 2008 19:35 |
|
| I am enjoying reading the responses to this fundamental question and agree with much that has been written. I would like to add another observation, which is that there tend to be too many institutional MOUs and this often constrains the ability of an institution to deepen existing relations. As already pointed out by others, sustainable relationship building takes time, trust and resources. All three can be compromised when African and U.S. faculty and administrators are involved in too many international partnerships.
|
JWashington
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 29th, 2008 |
| Country: | Liberia |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Country: | Liberia |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#23 Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 14:15 |
|
| Being in the presence of so much knowledge makes it fun to sit back and read the wisdom. This insight should only be pivotal in any partnership that should occur. I do believe that integrity of both parties within communication speaks highly of the goals and the ability to reach those goals tremendously.
|
Admin
Administrator
| Joined: | Thu Sep 18th, 2008 |
| Country: | |
| Posts: | 18 |
| Country: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#24 Posted: Fri Oct 17th, 2008 22:10 |
|
MESSAGE FROM THE MODERATORS / LE MESSAGE EN FRANCAIS SERA TRADUIT DES QUE POSSIBLE
Dear Participants,
Thank you for the lively discussion of the characteristics of successful higher education partnerships. It is obvious that many of you have had extensive, and perhaps also intensive, opportunities to partner with institutions and individuals from other nations. Your responses could best be summarized along three dimensions, namely, partnership framework, partnership program attributes, and traits of individual partners. We will organize our summary along these dimensions.
Framework – Some argued for the need for partnerships to be formalized through formal agreement documents that specify the expectations of the program as well as the activities to be undertaken. Somewhat related to this, others argued that a clear vision and mission articulation for the program is a necessary condition for successful partnerships. Related to this, some argued for the need for sharp program focus. Other framework characteristics raised were (a) recognition and articulation of barriers external to a partnership; (b) equality of treatment and mutual respect; (c) shared purpose; and (d) program sustainability.
Program Content/Structure – Some argued for the importance of stakeholders to be engaged in the partnership to provide validity and appropriate oversight. Others mentioned the need for clearly articulated goals and priority needs. Some focused on activity content arguing the need for joint activities, rigorous monitoring and evaluation, clear mutual benefits as well as individual benefits for all partners. The need for a clear division of labor among partners was emphasized by some in order to ensure mutual expectations, complementary roles, and ease of evaluation of partner inputs.
Partner Characteristics – Somewhat related to the need for a clear division of labor, others argued for the need for complementary strengths among partners and the willingness for them to cooperate. Specific individual characteristics of partners that were cited were: (a) excellent communication skills; (b) integrity; (c) passion for the program; (d) strong commitment to the program; and (e) strong leadership skills.
Summary – These traits all would seemingly argue for a legacy of prior interaction if not collaboration among the institutions involved. For new partnerships, it would certainly argue for intensive interaction during the onset of program activities.
Follow Up Question – What are best practices in terms of communication among partners?
Last edited on Fri Oct 17th, 2008 22:11 by Admin
|
Cliff Monahan
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 |
| Country: | USA |
| Posts: | 8 |
| Country: | USA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#25 Posted: Sat Oct 18th, 2008 15:03 |
|
Models for successful partnerships
We should consider that much of the success the Grameen Bank achieved in micro-lending programs can be traced to widening the pool of stakeholders involved in any single loan. By making a small community of stakeholders responsible for lending their money to individuals within that community, the recipient becomes accountable to more people, and the community needs the success of that project to get the loan back. People (or groups) outside the stakeholder pool do not have a vested interest in that project succeeding, so they may not support it or may even create obstacles because they were left out. Similar success can be found with Heifer Project's program of community involvement, both in terms of accountability and as a resource for the recipient. For the group to receive the next heifer to give to the next recipient, the first cow must produce.
With respect to HEI partnerships, if the stakeholder pool can be extended, more scrutiny and accountability would benefit the success of that partnership. The extension of the stakeholder pool might be within the HEIs themselves, or might draw public-private partnerships into the stakeholder pool. Using a proposal on health care as a specific example, widening the stakeholder pool from 2 departments of public health to include the faculties of medicine, nursing, and the Ministry of Health might open new opportunities as well as remove some hurdles. These extended partnerships don't necessarily dilute the limited resources if those stakeholders understand and agree to an advisory role now, with the success of the first project leading to added opportunities for sequential projects.
As others have described, the roles and expectations of the stakeholders must must be clearly defined, understood and accepted by each member. There should also be a mutually agreeable time-table for accountability, whether that be quarterly communications or meetings, but frequency promotes oversight and cements the sense of involvement between the partners.
|
jakin2
Member
|
#26 Posted: Sat Oct 18th, 2008 19:34 |
|
I am not sure the interests, and therefore the commitment, of all foreign partners in African higher education, and to African higher education institutions, always coincide with those of Diasporan Africans, especially African-born transplants.
|
yohan
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 |
| Country: | Ethiopia |
| Posts: | 15 |
| Country: | Ethiopia |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#27 Posted: Sun Oct 19th, 2008 10:07 |
|
Establishing a database of African higher education institutions and programs is crucial to promote networking and collaboration between African and US institutions and to fostering communication among partners. In this regard, the Africa-U.S. Higher Education Initiative plan to develop an interactive web portal for stakeholders to share information and learn from each other’s experiences is commendable strategy.
Regards,
Yohannes Woldetensae
|
Ron Turner
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 29th, 2008 |
| Country: | USA |
| Posts: | 4 |
| Country: | USA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#28 Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2008 03:55 |
|
What are best practices in terms of communication among partners?
I cannot presume the following description as "best practice", but it reflects actual communication practiice followed during the first 18 years of a continuing relationship between a US university and an African partner university.
The initial contact occurred when the chairman of the US partner committee, charged by its governing board with developing an institutional relationship with "an appropriate...African partner, made an introductory telephone call to the Rector of the African institution (AI) to determine if the AI would be willing to receive a delegation from the US institution (USI). The AI rector agreed and the delegation traveled to Africa and met for two weeks with colleagues there.
After two weeks the rector called his executive team together in the presence of the US delegation and concluded that the AI could work with the USI to develop a relationship.
Two months later the rector sent his designee to the US to sign a formal agreement that had been drafted jointly between the USI committee and the Rector's staff. The draft agreements were exchanged via DHL; this communication pre-dated the web; the AI did not own a FAX machine.
A senior member of the USI was asked by the institutional president to direct the relationship; his counterpart was a senior member selected by the rector of the AI. While the amount of effort devoted to the partnership varied, the amount of time for each was about 10-15% FTE, or less than one day per week. The directors had many other responsibilities beyond the international partnership.
Frequent phone calls continued between the two directors. AI director worked with a commitee created by the AI to advise the Rector; a similiar committee was created by the USI to advise the president. This ultimately led to a process of joint decision making by the two committees charged with developing and operating the relationship.
The two institutional directors worked with their respective committees and developed a professional relationship based on open, direct communication between themselves and direct communication with both the AI rector and the USI president. The rector and the president were kept fully informed of development issues as the relationship took root. The original institutional director for the USI served in that role for 18 years; the original AI director served for the first five years as the relationship matured. He was succeeded by a senior colleague who had served on the AI committee from its inception. This AI senior colleague continues to serve in that role.
One of the keys to the success of the relationship (which has resulted in hundreds of faculty exchanges, student exchanges, joint research, joint curriculum development, successful competition for major grant awards, summer schools both ways, honorary degree awards, periodic consultation between the AI rector and the USI president) was the stability and continuity of the institutional directors, their relationship to the institutional executives, the commitment of the institutional oversight committes and the participation of faculty members both ways for more than 20 years.
Communication was coordinated to the extent that a calendar was established and honored by both partners for the development of annual plans for faculty and student exchange activities and institutional committee decisions. The joint decison making process was regularized, and decisions were communicated to each institution's academic communities regularly and promptly.
Many hours, days and ultimately years were invested in communication both ways. The channels of communication include annual visits each way by the two institutional directors, written evaluation of each faculty and student exchange experience shared both ways, shared grant reports, clear communication on budget issues, telephone conference calls, one on one calls, email, file sharing, and access to documents dating from the beginning of the relationship.
As a result, trust and collegiality developed among the program directors, the program committees, the faculty and student participants, and the executive leadership of both institutions.
The key to communication is simple; it is based on openness, trust, collegiality and mutual benefit.
Last edited on Mon Oct 20th, 2008 04:12 by Ron Turner
|
akafst
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 |
| Country: | USA |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Country: | USA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#29 Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2008 16:48 |
|
| Another, last minute thought. I have participated in a larger "group" that partners around promoting and developing family medicine and primary health care in a number of sub-Saharan countries. My question, is the best partnership bilateral - one US and one African University or should there also be models that include a number of institutions on both sides of the Atlantic sharing ideas, ideals and resources?
|
rsyost
Member
| Joined: | Mon Sep 22nd, 2008 |
| Country: | USA |
| Posts: | 3 |
| Country: | USA |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#30 Posted: Mon Oct 20th, 2008 19:16 |
|
Dear Readers, I think there have been a number of excellent responses to the question. I particularly like the reply of our moderator - reply #7. In addition, I would add that there needs to be recognized roles for initiating action and responding to calls for action -- this emphasizes again the importance of communication in success of the partnerships. I like the idea of equal responsibility, but that needs to be negotiated as to what those responsibilities are and how they relate and advance the shared vision. So, I think that the partners roles in initiating action needs to be extremely well understood. In addition, a huge amount of patience seems essential as well as so many boundaries are often crossed in making the partnership, with each boundary likely at some time to exhaust nearly all of the remaining patience. I think it can be more than worth it in the final analysis, however.
|
amuziech
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 21st, 2008 |
| Country: | Nigeria |
| Posts: | 1 |
| Country: | Nigeria |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
#31 Posted: Tue Oct 21st, 2008 16:35 |
|
What are characteristics of successful partnerships?
1. Mutual interests are always paramount
2. Strengths and weaknessess of partners are clear; yet efforts/investments are made by partners to increase strengths and reduce weaknesses
4. Honesty and respect tenets of the relationship
5. Outlined benchmarks are delivered equally
|
Dr. Zoli Mali
Member
Dr
|
#32 Posted: Fri Oct 24th, 2008 00:26 |
|
Having worked with collaborations between South Africa and the US in the past for at least fours different institutions, based at one point in either side, I think that successful lines of communication are those that keep both stakeholders informed.
Even if each institution has one coordinator and perhaps in-country an director, it helps to cc all for whom the particular information is pertinent if communicating via email. This ensures that everyone is on board and thus there is likely to be smooth running of the program. If there are participants who do not have email access, it is advisable for the on-site coordinator/ director to hold reasonably regular meetings to inform others of what is happening or what the abroad partner has been communicating. In a nutshell, transparency is key.
Probably to reiterate for emphasis what has been voiced; promptness in responding wherever possible is crucial.
Let the partner know some important needs and differences in how some things are dealt with in the host turf from the abroad partner's way of doing things. This eliminates misconstruals or misconceptions.
|
Current time is 16:15 | Page:   1 2 |
|
|
|
|
