Collaborative Management in Social Care - Essay Example

Order Ref: 141380 6060 Order: Project Thesis Proposal “How can management systems within social care, ensure the best prospects for collaboration”? Date: 25th November 2006 Introduction Collaborative management in social care and allied settings is become more and more an “in vogue” system that underpinned the fragile network of partnerships, networks and collaboratives that bring together the services that are deemed a necessity for the welfare of our social services and philanthropic services that support a growing industry of social care professional services. The context of collaboration as a concept has in recent years as stated become “in vogue” in particular, the wider academic debate has moved from the empirical to the practical notion of application; in this respect this has focused upon the societal association of the term within a macro and micro models. More recently this is apparent in the wealth of prescriptive “how to do it” guides currently published. With the context of the proposed study we will consider the term “collaboration” to denote the notion of organisations that “work together” , this in itself will encompass those terms that are considered parallel to it, for example: co-ordination; co-operation and networking. This will allow facilitate a direct application of the wider concept of the term to the planned study. However, a working definition of the term “collaboration” would be offered at the outset from a wider consideration of the current literature available. The aim of the study will be to provide coherent answers to the proposed research question:- With reference to the theoretical models, how can management systems within social care ensure the best prospects for collaboration”? Within the context of this question we will focus the direction of the enquiry on three specific areas of the concept of collaboration:- The development of social care collaboratives The structures of management both at both the macro and micro levels of organisations involved The implications of such partnerships on future models of care. From a personal perspective having worked in the social care industry, I have viewed first hand the constraints and concerns that are endemic within the social care setting, these being impacted by the levels of macro management styles, systems and strategies that enforce the need for greater review, deployment and utilisation of precious resources. In this respect exploring the collaborative system within the context of social care will afford me greater understanding of the systems that govern and impact welfare provision in the United Kingdom (UK). Having now introduced the nature of the potential enquiry we can now move to briefly consider the current debate in literature that has informed the initial interest in this project subject and hypothesis proposed. Literature Review The culture of collaboration has in recent years been debated and discussed within academic circles to the point where this empirical debate now firmly focused on developing a wider theoretical understanding of this concept within the context of corporate and societal macro and micro models. At this state it is important to offer a definition of the term “collaboration”, although it is worth noting that its meaning and confluence is impacted by other concepts that are both similar and widely used in description of organisational behaviour and trends. (For example see: Challis 1988; Nocon 1994; Webb 1991). In this respect the notions of networking; co-ordination and co-operation are widely used and are often confused with the concept of collaboration. Therefore, it is useful to offer definition within the context of the proposed study. The term was introduced to organisational management theory by Emery and Trist in 1973 and further developed again by Trist in 1983 (Roberts & Bradley 1991). Since that period, many theorists have expanded the notion of this concept. A common consensus to the definition of the concept is offered by Huxham (1996b): Collaboration is taken to imply a very positive form of working in association with others for some form of mutual benefit … the concern … is … with collaboration between organisations (p.7). However, it is important to note at this early planning stage that within the context of the literature their seems to be no distinct difference between the definition of co-orporation and collaboration; both terms are used inter-changeably (Beresford and Trevellion 1995; Huxham 1993a; Huxham 1996b). Therefore, these terms have been accepted as providing a conceptual definition of … “something to do with working together – in interpreting what others say about them” Huxham (1993a p. 602). Therefore to offer justice to the wealth of literature we would use the term “working together” as a key conceptual analysis of the organisations that will be the subjects of this, proposed study. This will afford firstly, overview of societal collaboration within social care housing settings. Secondly, with reference to societal organisation and its environment, the reasons why organisation wish to and do collaborate for the good of society; and thirdly, the study will consider the wider context of methods that ensure good collaboration. Recent trends and policies within social care governance and management structure require organisations to work together at macro and micro levels with strategic and organisational plans to procure, present and plan services in the public interest. This includes procuring services from charitable, voluntary and non-strategically commissioned services to work with and alongside mandated organisations to provide all aspect of social housing and care. Biggs (1993) deemed this emphasis … “as a central plank in government attempts to engineer change in health and welfare services as evidence by the 1990 NHS & Community Care Act. (P. 151). Although this period was within the governance of the Conservative Government, we still have more far reaching changes that have impacted the structures of collaboration at the micro levels of our society. This includes devolved governance of parts of the United Kingdom that have impacted on the ways that social care is currently delivered. The integration of organisations that provide key care services for frail elderly is currently a growth market for collaborative ventures that are consistently being re-evaluated and appraised to ensure good collaborative endeavours. This is clearly noted in academic circles in particular Davies (2004) states that such collaboration is here to stay and will be a continual area of significant growth as resources in particular financial constraints are seen more and more at the micro level of provision. This can be seen in the inter-organisational structure in place in many of societal care related organisations; that are certainly not collaborating for purely altruistic reasons, (Nocon 1994). Most share common meta-goals and meta-mission strategies that are best served through the creation of a synergy that may develop within the context of collaborative advantage (Huxham 1993). For reasons that underpin collaborative endeavours, we can find that there are specifically three specific models found in the literature, these are: mandated or bureaucratic, market led and associative. We will not specifically explore these models at this prospect stage, but it must be noted however, that the three models do have important linkages. In particular, the concepts of interdependence and collaborative advantage. But, what is in favour for a wider consideration of this project is that collaborative interdependence has been consistently presented through mandated organisations by central government to provide solutions to the magnitude of societal problems. In some cases collaborative advantage, can occur, this being …”the creation of a synergy between collaborating organisations … Huxham (1993 p. 603); whereby, an objective is met through collaborating that could not have been met by a single organisation (Huxham 1996a; Huxham 1996b; Huxham 1996c). What creates the desire or need for collaboration; can be explained in two organisational concept terms “environment” and “purpose”. In this respect in simple terms, external environmental factors create pre-conditions for inter-organisational ventures by the restriction of the capacity of an organisation to perform a service well independently. (Hudson 1987). An example being, organisational turbulence when individual organisations operating in the same field, work in diverse directions; this then impairs the ability of the organisations to plan an act strategically. This is a common problem when organisations compete for the same pool of strategic operational funding in the social care sector. Or, the impact of government directives on social legislation upon strategic organisations at the macro level in the UK could be deemed a turbulent field (Office for Community Affairs; National Assembly of Wales). Furthermore, societal collaboration to be purposeful in itself needs to find solutions or preferred outcomes to a given social problem: housing, homelessness, mental health, care are deemed social problems. Addressing such problems are costly and societal collaborative by widening the pool of organisational expertise and professional organisations are able to provide greater synergy and resources to such problems at both the strategic macro level and the operational macro levels. This marriage of expertise, allows for the convergence of individual organisational goals to form meta-goals and meta-strategy leading to the potential development of consensual inter-organisational meta-mission. This creation of synergy is crucial to any societal collaborative venture, and can be seen clearly in the rise of inter-agency working in the social care and allied sectors. There are a number of organisational methodologies that impact and ensure good collaboration these are exhaustive, but, considering these, we must consider the complexity of organisational structures; boundaries; dynamics; power basis; trust and formulated evaluating processes that will impact on any collaborative arrangement. Bearing this in mind, we can consider the work of Handy (1993) in which he provides theoretical structures to the study of organisations and also that of Penning (1981) who categorised the notion of interdependence within organisation that would clearly impact on any further study within the context of this project. And importantly, the work of Cropper (1996) who discussed the potential dangers and values of the symbiotic relationship that collaborating organisations can create within the structures and constructs of a collaborative. Having now provided a brief overview of the complex framework of academic and theoretical debate we move to consider the potential methodology that will inform the finding of any potential study. Methodology Firstly, the consideration between qualitative and quantitative research approaches and in deciding this, given the timescale, which method would prove more successful in the gathering of appropriate research data. Notably, quantitative methods of analysis are frequently noted for deductive research methods in which hypothesis are tested. In this respect if a survey method was adopted for this study, for example a questionnaire, it would provide raw numerical data for analysis, but it would not prove the answers to why the organisations have been successful in collaborating, unless it was balanced with another method, for example, a series of short unstructured interviews with key personnel. Therefore, it was considered more appropriate to use qualitative methods. Given the nature of the study qualitative methods, would ensure both … “a richer, more vital, and greater depth … [whilst more] … likely to present a true picture …” Haralambos & Holborn (1995). With consideration of the differences and problems associated with quantitative and qualitative approaches, serious consideration would be given to using purely a qualitative method, using structured interviews with social care professionals with supportive documentation from those organisations targeted for the data collection. This will clearly depend on the geographical community chosen. The method would also involve correspondence with leading academics involved in macro and micro studies of collaborative societal ventures. Examination of published and unpublished literature and where possible a short series of audio recorded unstructured interviews, with transcription and analysis of the raw data contrasted within the context of the literature. Final an informed choice of the actual method of collecting research data will inform the conceptual analysis of social care organisations chosen at the macro levels while leaving opportunity for analysis of the finer micro issues that will impact on the success of knowing how the collaboration has been successful. However, it is also noted and not ruled out that other potential qualitative methods can be utilised, for example: observational case studies; analysis of an element of an organisations work at either the macro or micro perspective. Notwithstanding the aspect of chosen methodology, it is imperative that the method is strong enough and robust to target, glean and focus the data that will inform and create the raw data necessary to answer with consistent comparison and contrast with the academic and theoretical literature that informs the contextual analysis of organisational management trends within collaborative structured ventures. Prospective Outcomes and Conclusions. The prospective title of this study is: Collaborative Management: A focus on social care models. Would focus on the development of collaborative structures and impact on social care settings, systems, human resources and the operational impact to the services being procured and delivered. In so doing the project one would, firstly, hope to find that in accordance with the concept of collaboration raised in the literature, it would be found that interdependence within the structure of the collaborative organisations studied is a clear and living aspect that impacts and meta-manages the underpinning of the organisations or ventures operational emphasis and mission strategy. (Hudson 1987; Huxham 1993a; Nocon 1994; Vangen et-al 1994). It would secondly also be expected to find ongoing evaluative and review procedures firmly in place that govern and direct the work of the collaboratives viewed. This in turn would show the health of the organisation and its future strategic growth and potential micro impact. (Cropper 1996; Gray 1996; Huxham 1996a). This in turn would spin off towards the continuous dynamics of the creative synergy that powers the development of the collaborating organisations or ventures. Thirdly, it would also be expected that one would find clear evidence of continuous interdependence between the organisations involved in the collaborative venture. In so doing it would prove that the organisation is a healthy model of collaborative advantage, which in turn shows that factors that show good collaboration have been achieved and are being sustained. In conclusion, notwithstanding this concept and context of this study proposal; given the complexity for consistent and constant changes ongoing currently in the management of social care sectors in the UK; it is also a concern that it may be potentially possible to consider collaborative failure or inertia where the collaborative structured organisation has lost its impact, emphasis or indeed its operational environment. However, the value of the study will be to afford greater understanding of collaborative structures that are now a vital life force for the management of social care and allied settings. Cited: Barr C & Vangen C (1994) “Investigating effective collaboration” in Richie C (1994); Community Works Pavic Sheffield HallumUniversity. Pp 101-185. Beresford P. & Trevellion S. (1995) Developing Skills for Community Care; A Collaborative Approach Arena Hants. Biggs s. (1993) “User participation and interprofessional collaboration in community care J. of Interprofessional Care (vol 7: No 2 pp. 151-159) Challis L. (1988) Joint Approaches to Social Policy: Rationality and Practice Cambridge University Press Cambs. Cropper S. (1996) “Collaborative working and the issue of sustainability” in Huxham c (ed) (1996) Creating Collaborative Advantage Sage London. Pp 80-100. “ Davies. B. (2004) “integration of health and social services for frail older people in England: implications of service and care management productivities for prioritising policy effort” Cited on: Read More