CM ResultsNumber of participants: 6
Detailed results for legitimacy and efficiency
Your CollaborationParticipant Average
Your CollaborationParticipant Average
* Since higher costs have a negative implication, the value is inversed in the graph, as in:
low cost = high score.
A high score indicates that elected politicians have a very important role in setting the goals, budget or design of the collaboration.
A low score indicates that the goals of the collaboration may not match or have the support of relevant elected politicians. A low score is not necessarily problematic. However, if the collaboration is involved in policy design or receives public funding for its activities, then a low score could be a problem. To score higher on this dimension, the collaboration should strive to have elected politicians more closely engaged in the collaboration either by direct participation or by regular dialogue.
A high score indicates that groups of actors directly affected by the collaboration are to a large extent participating or being represented in the collaboration. It may also be because your collaboration is very open to communicate with the directly affected groups of actors. Usually, a high score is a good thing, but having many actors may also make collaboration more difficult.
A low score indicates that the collaboration may not involve relevant participants. Having low input legitimacy from stakeholders can be problematic if the aim is to cater more effectively to the needs of citizens or private organisations or to secure broad ownership of the collaboration. If so, you should consider inviting more (relevant/affected) actors to participate in the collaboration.
A high score indicates that the decision-making process within the collaboration is to a large extent transparent, and/or that there are explicit guidelines for giving accounts of the collaboration’s activities and decisions to public officials, and/or that the collaboration responds to feedback or critique from politicians or the public. Usually, a high score is a good thing, but excessive and unflexible demands for transparency and documentation may at times hamper collaboration.
A low score indicates that the collaboration may not be transparent or provide access to its decisions, have explicit processes or guidelines available or respond to feedback. A low score is usually problematic if the collaboration receives public funding. To score higher on this dimension, you may want to improve the collaboration’s transparency by, for example, having explicit decision-making procedures accessible and by publishing minutes of meetings.
A high score indicates that your collaboration has clear procedures for its work and for balancing the various interests of its participants, and for handling disagreements through dialogue.
A low score indicates a lack of clear procedures for handling different interests and potential disagreements. A low score for collaborations between public organizations may not be problematic provided that they score high on political throughput. However, for collaborations between public and private organisations, you should consider to improve procedures for handling disagreements and ensuring that all actors participate and have a real say. This is particularly relevant if there are considerable power asymmetries between the participants in the collaboration.
A high score indicates that the results produced by the collaboration are monitored either by public managers or by politicians or both. This is usually a good thing. However, overzealous monitoring or direct political or managerial interference in the production of outputs may be counterproductive.
A low score indicates that there is no or little oversight of the collaboration or the results produced. A low score may be problematic if the collaboration receives public money in return for contributing to producing specific outputs, such as more efficient or higher quality services. Therefore you may want to discuss with the relevant public managers or politicians on how to develop useful output monitoring and feedback.
A high score indicates that most of the stakeholders/groups of actors who are directly affected by the decisions and actions of the collaboration are satisfied with the results.
A low score may indicate that the stakeholders/groups of actors are dissatisfied with the output from the collaboration. A low score may be problematic if the collaboration is intended to bring out better outputs, such as producing more efficient or higher quality services. Therefore you may want to consider engaging in dialogue with the stakeholder groups about how to improve outputs.
Productive efficiency refers to the relationship between the inputs and outputs of the production. A collaboration can obtain productive efficiency when it maximises outputs over inputs or vice versa.
A high score indicates that your collaboration has used less resources to produce the same output.
A low score indicates that the cost per unit of service delivery has not improved significantly through your collaboration. You may need to consider the trade-off with other dimensions of efficiency and/or how to reduce the resources used to obtain the same amount of outputs.
The setting-up and maintenance of collaborations will involve an investment of resources. These costs may include the time spent finding a partner/staff, negotiating, contracting, buying equipment, and/or making staff redundant.
A high score indicates that in order to establish and maintain your collaboration, you have incurred high costs that you may want to identify and reduce. To increase efficiency, you need to consider how these costs relate to those spent prior to forming the collaboration and whether the costs outweigh the benefits. A high score does not necessarily mean that your collaboration is inefficient, but may reflect significant initial investment which has just to be recouped.
A low score indicates that you have not had any significant upfront costs or costs in maintaining the collaboration.
Non-cost efficiency refers to the results of the collaboration not directly related to costs, such as the quality of services provided.
A high score indicates that the collaboration has increased the quality of the services provided and/or has successfully implemented policy.
A low score indicates that the collaboration may have been unsuccessful in implementing policy and/or not increased the service or the quality provided. While the ultimate aim may be to reduce costs and improve services, there may be a need for a trade-off between the two, and that this will depend on timing and context.
Allocative efficiency refers to the match between the demand for services and their supply, and whether resources are being used appropriately. It means that the service provided is what users need.
A high score indicates that you believe that the users are being provided with a service that they need, and that the resources are being allocated efficiently.
A low score may indicate that you are providing an efficient service, but the service may not be the one that people need. One way of assessing this is to consult the users to understand whether the services provided are appropriate.
Distributive efficiency refers to the equity of the distribution of services. Besides the decision on what service will be offered to the users, there is also a decision to make on to whom the services should be provided.
A high score indicates that the services have been fairly distributed according to the specific needs of the users.
A low score may indicates that you should consider whether the distribution of services is benefitting a category of users over others, and if you need/want to change this distribution. It does not necessarily mean that services have to be equally distributed, but fairly and according to the needs of users.
Dynamic efficiency refers to spending priorities and the need to find a balance in the allocation of resources between current and future consumption (resources spent now versus planned expenditure).
A high score indicates that there is a good balance between the current expenditure for services and investments for the future need of services.
A low score indicates that you should consider the balance between different types of expenditure and the allocation of these expenditures over time, e.g. that spending on prevention may be cheaper than resources needed to cure.
Comparison between efficiency and legitimacy
ICT (Information and Communication Technologies)
Helpfulness of ICT
1) Helpfulness of ICT
TROPICO research shows that ICT tools may play a key role in increasing the efficiency and legitimacy of collaborations.
ICT tools could create a digital environment for testing and improving innovative ideas, enhance interactions between users, and help overcome practical barriers to communication. Moreover, ICT may also be an important enabler of user-involvement, enhancing participation and transparency of the innovation process.
A high score (“Very Helpful” or “Helpful”) indicates that your collaboration strongly benefits from the use of ICT. This may account for improving interactions between users, increasing transparency, or enabling continuous development of innovative ideas.
A low score (“Sligthly Helpful” or “Not Helpful”) indicates that your collaboration does not fully exploit the potential of ICT. It may be that either ICT is playing a minor role in your collaboration or is not perceived as helpful by its users. To score higher on this dimension, you could try to adjust the use of ICT to your collaboration’s requirements and obtain feedback on its usage.
2) ICT Tools
ICT tools are becoming increasingly important in facilitating collaboration by enhancing interoperability, communication, and transparency.
Tools for transferring and managing documents may allow for flexible collaboration and simultaneaous interactions, creating a more effective and innovative environment. Online collaboration tools can improve the (co-)development of public sector innovation and accelerate its scalability. Data management and analysis tools may not only help to structure and assess data for its users, but also promote their transparency and enhance evidence-based decision-making.
A high score (“Very Important” or “Important”) indicates that ICT tools are perceived as a central element in facilitating your collaboration, for instance by allowing for improved communication and increased transparency.
A low score (“Slightly Important” or “Not Important”) may indicate that ICT tools are not considered as an important factor in facilitating your collaboration. ICT tools may become obstacles for collaboration if they are not designed adequately or if users do not accept them as means for communication. To improve the use of ICT tools, you may want to consider the user-friendliness of the tools and evaluate their use frequently.