Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
A configuration study of multiagency partnerships as practiced in Taipei City government
(USC Thesis Other)
A configuration study of multiagency partnerships as practiced in Taipei City government
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI films
the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some thesis and
dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be from any type of
computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations
and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send U M I a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these w ill be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note w ill indicate the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and continuing
from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6" x 9" black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations appearing
in this copy for an additional charge. Contact U M I directly to order.
ProQuest Information and Learning
300 North Zeeb Road. Ann Arbor. M l 48106-1346 USA
800-521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
A CONFIGURATION STUDY OF MULTIAGENCY PARTNERSHIPS
AS PRACTICED IN TAIPEI CITY GOVERNMENT
by
Jong-huh Huang
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE SCHOOL OF POLICY, PLANNING,
AND DEVELOPMENT
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
(POLICY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT)
December 2001
Copyright 2001 Jong-huh Huang
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UM I Number 3054751
Copyright 2001 by
Huang, Jong-huh
All rights reserved.
_ ___ f l f t
UMI
UMI Microform 3054751
Copyright 2002 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company
300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
SCHOOL OF POLICY, PLANNING, AND DEVELOPMENT
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90089
This dissertation, written by
Jong-huh Huang
under the direction o f h.Dissertation
Committee, and approved by all its
members, has been presented to and
accepted by the Faculty of the School o f
Policy, Planning, and Development, in
partial fulfillment o f requirements fo r the
degree of
DOCTOR OF PUBLIC ADMNISTRA TION
Dean
DISSERTATION COMMJ
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
There are many people to thank for the completion of this dissertation.
First, I would like to thank Dr. Ross Clayton, my dissertation committee chair, for
his devoted instruction, unswerving support, and continuous encouragements. He
has been a great educator and I will always look upon him as an invaluable mentor.
Dr. Chester Newland and Dr. Harry Richardson also deserve my heartfelt gratitude
for their timely, generous advice as well as substantive suggestions throughout the
dissertation process.
My thanks also goes to the Taipei City Government for her generous
research grant and comprehensive assistance in many practical aspects of the study.
The study was only made possible by the cooperation and support of many
agencies, particularly the Research, Development and Evaluation Commission, and
its dedicated staff notably Shu-Tang Hsieh and Jaw-Bow Liu.
In addition, I feel obligated to acknowledge members of my research team:
Tong-Yi Huang, Yu-Yin Kuo, Ren-Her Hsieh, and Te-Fen Lin. Thanks to their
enthusiasm, teamwork spirit, and remarkable competency, the empirical parts of the
study were successfully executed. Meantime, I am grateful to Chuan-Cheng Tseng
for helping me with the proofreading work.
Finally, it is with the utmost gratitude and love that I would like to dedicate
this publication to Man-Ling Chen, my loving wife, lifelong companion, and
soul mate.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS......................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES....................................................................................... x
LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................... xi
ABSTRACT................................................................................................ xii
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION......................................................................... 1
Statement of the Problem..................................................... 1
Adaptation, Coalignment and Configuration....................... 5
Multiagency Partnership as Adaptation Strategy in
In Taipei City Government......................................... 8
Organization of the Remainder of the Study........................ 10
2. RATIONALE AND RELEVATION RESEARCH...................... 12
From Bureaucracy to Fluidity: New Organizational
Forms.......................................................................... 12
The Necessity for Multiagency Partnerships in Local
Governance................................................................. 15
3. THE STUDY................................................................................ 29
The Case of Taipei City Government.................................. 29
Research Framework........................................................... 32
The External Environment......................................... 33
Internal Organizational Arrangements........................ 36
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
iv
Chapter Page
Cell 1: Inspiration and Market Structures.................. 39
Cell 2 and 4: Collegial Consensual Structures 39
Cells 3 and 6: Collegial Competitive and Collegial
Mediative Structures........................................... 40
Cell 5: Hierarchial Structures.................................... 40
Cell 7: Adversarial Structures................................... 40
Cell 8: Adjudicative Structures................................. 41
Cell 9: Indeterminate Structures............................... 41
Effectiveness............................................................... 43
Argumentation and Research Questions.............................. 46
Research Design.................................................................. 49
Documentary and Secondary Data Analyses of
Documents......................................................... 50
The Survey Research Method and the Nominal
Group Technique................................................ 50
The Questionnaire and Survey................................... 50
Quinn and Others’ (1996) Management Competency
Scale.................................................................. 51
The Nominal Group Technique.................................. 52
Panel Discussion......................................................... 52
In-depth Case Interviews............................................. 54
The Case of Cable Line Removal............................... 54
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
V
Chapter Page
The Case of Lao-shang Primary School...................... 54
The Case of Levying Fees Along with Trash Bags 55
The Case of Pei-tou Spring Museum & Water Park.... 55
Expected Research Results and Contributions..................... 56
Research Limitations........................................................... 58
4. RESEARCH FINDINGS AND ANALYSES.............................. 60
The External Environment................................................... 62
Analysis of the Four Cases.......................................... 62
Conclusion.......................................................................... 66
Major Findings from the Survey of TCG’s
Multiagency Partnerships.................................. 66
Internal Organizational Settings........................................... 70
Analyses of Four Cases............................................... 62
Findings from the Survey on TCG’s Multiagency
Partnerships........................................................ 78
Cross Tabs Analyses................................................... 80
Findings from Quinn’s Management Competency
Survey................................................................ 84
Summary Findings from the Nominal Group
Technique.......................................................... 90
Effectiveness Factors.................................................. 94
Findings from the Survey on TCG’s Multiagency
Partnerships........................................................ 98
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vi
Chapter Page
5. A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AS THEY RELATE TO THE
RESEARCH QUESTIONS................................................. 100
The Current Status of the Multiagency Partnerships in
TCG........................................................................... 100
Question 1: What is the Current Status of the
Multiagency Partnerships in Taipei City
Government?..................................................... 100
The Types of Multiagency Partnerships Currently
Operated in TCG......................................................... 103
Question 2: What are the Types of Multiagency
Partnerships Currently in Operation in the
Taipei City Government?.................................. 105
The Configuration of TCG’s Multiagency Partnerships 105
Question 3: What are the Configurations of TCG’s
Multiagency Partnerships? Are Its People,
Culture, and Governance Structure Aligned
Properly for Accomplishing Its Critical Tasks?.. 105
The Skills and Abilities Perceived by TCG’s Managers 107
Question 4: To What Extent are the TCG Managers
In Charge of Multiagency Partnerships
Equipped with Necessary Skills and Abilities?.. 107
The Effectiveness of TCG’s Multiagency Partnerships 108
Question 5: How Effective are TCG’s Multiagency
Partnerships? What Factors Affect Their
Policy Efficacy?................................................ 108
Issues TCG’s Multiagency Partnerships Encounter............. 111
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
vii
Chapter Page
Question 6: What Strategies and Suggestions are
Advisable to Help the Taipei City Government
Deal with Those Challenges and Problems
That Prevent Managerial Smart Practices from
Becoming Reality?............................................ 111
6. REFLECTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS..................................... 116
Reflections.......................................................................... 116
Multiagency Partnerships in TCG are Bureaucratic
In Structure, but Learning Entities in Essence.... 116
Managers in Partnerships Can Never Assume
Support, but Must Work to Build It................... 118
Team Building and Information Technology Appear
to Be Innovative Ways of Extending the
Potency of Partnerships..................................... 120
Leadership is an Imperative Path to the Success of
Partnerships....................................................... 122
Implications for Public Policy and Management................. 123
Institution Building.................................................... 124
Construct an Effective Incentive Mechanism.............. 124
Establish a Knowledge Management Platform as a
Mechanism for Communication and
Coordination..................................................... 125
Operational Strategies................................................ 126
Strengthen Cross-boundary Management Training 127
Directions for Future Research........................................... 128
REFERENCES........................................................................................... 131
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Page
APPENDICES............................................................................................. 145
A. ANNUAL PROLIFERATION OF COMMITTEES IN THE
TAIPEI CITY GOVERNMENT (1968-2000.3).................. 146
B. LEAD AGENCIES OF AD HOC TASK FORCES, TCG AND
MAIN TASKS..................................................................... 148
C. RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION ON HORIZONTAL
COORDINATION IN THE TAIPEI CITY
GOVERNMENT (1996.7-1997.3)...................................... 150
D. 152 CASES OF MULTIAGENCIES PARTNERSHIPS IN
TAIPEI CITY GOVERNMENT......................................... 152
E. SELECTIVE CASES OF TCG MULTIAGENCY
PARTNERSHIP.................................................................. 154
F. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE SURVEY ON TCG’S
MULTIAGENCY PARTNERSHIP.................................... 157
G. QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MANAGEMENT COMPETENCY
SURVEY............................................................................. 164
H. RESPONDENTS’ BACKGROUND FOR THE SURVEY ON
TCG’S MULTIAGENCY PARTNERSHIP........................ 173
I. RECORDS OF A SURVEY ON THE TAIPEI CITY
GOVERNMENT’S MULTIAGENCY PARTNERSHIPS
THROUGH THE NOMINAL GROUP TECHNIQUES 176
J. TRANSCRIPTIONS OF AN INTERVIEW ON THE
PROGRAM OF REMOVING CABLE-TV LINES IN
TAIPEI AND OTHER RELEVANT ISSUES..................... 188
K TRANSCRIPTIONS OF AN INTERVIEW ON THE CASE OF
LAO-SHANG PRIMARY SCHOOL (BOPILIAO) 202
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ix
Page
L. TRANSCRIPTIONS OF AN INTERVIEW ON TAIPEI’S
BAG-BASED GARBAGE DISPOSAL CHARGES AND
FURTHER ELABORATION ON RELATED ISSUES 215
M. TRANSCRIPTIONS OF AN INTERVIEW ON TAIPEI’S
PEI-TOU SPRING MUSEUM & WATER PARK.............. 229
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
X
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Decision Settings and Appropriate Governance Structure 39
2. Managerial Roles and Competencies............................................. 44
3. External Demands of the Four Cases............................................. 67
4. Talley of “How Do Agencies in Partnerships Support Each
Other Financially?” ................................................................... 71
5. Descriptive Statistics on Competencies........................................ 85
6. Regression Analysis...................................................................... 88
7. Talley of Voting on “Most Effective Means of Multiagency
Partnerships” ....................................................................... 92
8. Voting Tally on “Most Effective Ways of Cross-agency
Communication and Information Sharing”.......................... 94
9. Voting Tally of Voting on “How to Advance Multiagency
Partnerships When Regulations are Ambiguous and
Responsibilities Blurry”....................................................... 95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. A Proposed Conceptual Framework for the Study of Multiagency
Partnerships......................................................................... 34
2. Organizational Arrangements....................................................... 37
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
ABSTRACT
A CONFIGURATION STUDY OF MULTIAGENCY PARTNERSHIPS
AS PRACTICED IN TAIPEI CITY GOVERNMENT
This study explores how effective multiagency partnerships play an
adaptation role in configuring public agencies’ personnel, structure, strategy,
culture, and critical tasks to confront challenging environments. In assessing
factors affecting effectiveness of multiagency collaboration, the study adopts
concepts of strategic coalignment. Practical interagency collaboration in Taipei
City Government (TCG) is the research focus, with an emphasis upon the major
factors in her external environment and internal organizational arrangements.
Research tools include in-depth interviews, a multiagency partnership survey, a
Quinn’s Management Competency survey, and a Nominal Group Techniques
session, besides documentary and secondary-data analyses of documents.
Major findings include: (a) Multiagency partnerships of Taipei are
bureaucratic in structure since the partnership incentive originates primarily from
agency executives; (b) Ad hoc task forces are the preferred type of interagency
collaboration while interpersonal networks are considered critical; (c) TCG’s
configurational arrangements for multiagency partnerships have room for
improvement; (d) Though equipped with general coordination and communication
skills, TCG officials need to strengthen skills for cross-agency collaboration and
communication; and (e) Strong agency executives being the driving force for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
partnership efforts, implementation-level officials lack solution strategies in
confronting difficulties.
Implications for public policy and management are elaborated upon.
Proposals for institution building include updating and clarification of rules and
decrees, institution of an effective incentive mechanism, and platform construction
for strengthening communication and coordination. Likewise, suggested strategies
for improving multiagency collaboration effectiveness include facilitating informal
organizations and human networks, cultivating a collaborative culture and
leadership, and strengthening training and development.
For future research, the study proposes that variables be identified through
more qualitative research efforts in different locales, with an aim for a better
research framework. Future research with larger sample sizes is needed to
construct a set of indicators capable of reliably measuring the degree of strategic fit.
Finally, it will be useful to consider organizational identity as a moderating variable
in multiagency dynamics.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
StatMMit o f the Problem
This study focuses on public organizations and attempts to develop a frame
work for exploring new organizational forms of multiagency partnerships and their
strategic choice and action taking. This effort is of significance, particularly given
the changing conditions and circumstances of public organizations. Over the past
several decades, the nature and scope of government action have expanded for be
yond the historical core functions of government. Governments at all levels have
assumed new responsibilities, taken on new roles, and entered into new forms and
patterns of relationships (Guy Peters, 2000; O’Toole, 2000b). As a result, those re
sponsible for establishing purposes and directions for public organizations, both po
litical leaders at the jurisdiction level and general managers at the organization level,
have come to face fundamentally new sets of strategic problems and responsibilities.
Moreover, a gigantic transformation has been taking place throughout the
world primarily as a result of the “reinventing government” movement. The conven
tional concept of “big and almighty” government has given way to that of “smaller
but more efficient” government Researchers like Guy Peters (2000), Guy Peters
and Savoir (1995), and Ingraham and Kneedler, (2000) point out several pressures
for horizontality with a major bearing on modem governance. According to Lynn,
Heinrich and Hill (2000, pp. 235-236), governance generally refers to “the means for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
2
achieving direction, control, and coordination of wholly or partially autonomous in
dividuals or organizations on behalf of interests to which they jointly contribute.”
The study of governance often includes three important factors: (a)the configura
tional nature of governance, (b) the political interests that influence action, and (c)
the fact of both formal and informal authority.
1. Financial problems. More public programs and services are being
demanded while the resources available are being slashed or are diminishing. As
financial restraints test public administrators' capacity to govern, they find it a taxing
task to prioritize programs and services and to execute them in effective and efficient
ways.
2. Permanent problems. In addition to financial concerns, many policy
issues have become even more intractable than before and are emerging in ways that
tend to transcend the usual boundaries of those departments and programs. Job crea
tion, welfare promotion for the less privileged class, and sustainable economic-
ecological development are three typical, thorny tasks with which government must
deal
3. Questions of legitimacy. The traditional thinking o f government as
having absolute, exclusive power to make policy is no longer acceptable in a democ
ratic society. While government's ability to appropriately and efficiently allocate
resources is under constant scrutiny, voices asking for public participation and
empowerment for the sake of reform are getting louder. Guy Peters (2000, pp. 8-12)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
3
suggests that the pressures for horizontal government include, in addition to changes
in political ideologies about the role of public sector and administrative reforms over
the past several decades, fiscal pressures, and strategic management issues.
4. Strategic management. One positive consequence for coordination
arising out o f management reforms during the past several decades is an emphasis on
strategic management with its emphasis on clear objectives for the public sector.
One of the first things that any politician or administrator engaged in strategic
management discovers, is that most of the important strategic objectives for
governments cut across conventional organizational boundaries and therefore require
working horizontally across the “stovepipes” of government.
To confront the above challenges and those arising from a new era of global
ization, new information technologies, and a multivalue society, governments eve
rywhere are undertaking a series of reforms, such as reorganization, reengineering,
and re invention. Even governments that have been relatively insulated from interna
tional pressures find that almost all their policies have an international dimension,
and that those international pressures tend to force broader consideration of the is
sues (Peters, 2000, p. 11). Buzzwords abound: (a) reinvent; (b) redesign; (c) reduce;
(d) restructure; (e) renew; (f) refocus; (g) redefine; (h) realign; (l* ) revitalize; and (j)
massively reform and reconfigure the public sector, to develop a system of new
public management (Boase, 2000, p. 76). Government’s roles, priorities, and inter
actions with citizens are considered anew in the new policy environment (DMTF,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
4
19%, p. 2). The ultimate goal of these efforts is improved policy capacity on the
part of public managers. However, to render effective and efficient public services,
a multitude of factors need to work in tandem. Specifically speaking, horizontal
coordination issues are more likely than ever to present difficulties for public sector
workers either because of jurisdictional conflict or lack of expertise and resources.
Furthermore, many policy issues of today are too complex and interdependent to be
handled by any single agency or many agencies working together but without good
coordination. Sproule-Jones (2000, pp. 93-97) points out that programs delivered by
more than one organization are called “horizontal management” in some works,
“managing networks” in others, and “community or research governance” in a third
stream of writings. He further suggests that there are three key factors that establish
situations whereby horizontal management becomes necessary: (a) elements of
interdependency between working units; and (b) the multilevel structure within
which organizational units operate, and horizontal managers' unable to invoke clo
sure rules on negotiation at their level in a multilevel situation. In practice, an active
and collaborative involvement of relevant agencies in policy development and ser
vice delivery may help retool public administrators, thus leading to better policy ef
fectiveness (DMTF, 1996, pp. 2-3).
Guy Peters (1998a) also points out the issues troubling the work of inter
agency coordination. For instance, application of the market mode to government
functions calls forth new values and structural adjustments, but this may end up
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
5
having maladjustments and ineffective coordination on the part of public workers
concerned. Since cooperation and coordination in government are taken for granted
in spirit but not in practical applications, a true partnership as practiced in interde
partmental relations can be an innovative problem-solving approach. Pierre (1998)
present many findings in support of “partnerships” as effective means to improve
efficacy in policy development and program delivery. That explains in part why a
major task of the current study is to explore how effective partnerships may play
an adaptation role in successfully configuring the related agencies’ personnel, struc
ture, strategy, culture, and critical tasks in order to confront a vexing, challenging
environment.
Adaptation, Coafignment and Configuration
Adaptation as a key concept concerns employing the characteristics of an or
ganization that may facilitate the adaptive process in light of an unstable environ
ment (Romanelli & Tushman, 1986; Stewart, 1997). In a different tone, AnsofF
(1979) has also addressed the issue by asking how the resources of an organization
may be reconfigured as part of an effective arrangement in response to unanticipated
surprises. The literature on this topic has witnessed much discussion of possible an
tecedents to adaptation, such as strategy, structure, top management team character
istics, organizational slack, and so forth. In a well-quoted summary, Miller and
Friesen (1980, p. 269) note that it is more advantageous to consider these possible
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
6
factors because “there are many interacting environmental, structural, and behavioral
attributes that influence adaptation."
Ansoff (1979) further noted that a proper configuration of the organization's
resources is of critical value, especially in an environment characterized by instabil
ity and change. So the study shares the same concern, thus expressed: How can a
public organization configure its personnel, structure, strategy, and other available
resources in order to perform better in a vexingly sophisticated environment?
In sum, adaptation has as its core the coalignment between an organization
and its environment, whereas the achievement of coalignment has been shown to
effectively improve organizational performance. In a reciprocal relationship, envi
ronmental changes and the organization itself interact in ways that cause changes in
each other. This concerns the concept of multiple strategies for achieving firm-
environment coalignment; that is, a firm has many available strategies for achieving
adaptation, ranging from compliant adaptation to environmental demands, to ma
nipulation of the environment (Magill, 1992, pp. 19-21). To achieve coalignment
with the environment via strategic choice, executives of an organization must serve
as leaders capable of “bridging the external environment and their organization,
thereby facilitating adaptation to the environment" (Bantel & Jackson, 1989).
Henry Mintzberg, Danny Miller and Peter Friesen, in the so-called “McGill Univer
sity Studies,” provide the seminal research on the concept of configuration (Gallik,
1988). What Mintzberg suggested which is pertinent to this study, and continues in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
7
the work of Miller and Friesen, is the assertion that there is no correct structure, only
a "coherent configuration” appropriate to a company’s internal and external envi
ronments. Fundamentally, configurations are brought together and held together by
networks of causation that create recognizable types or patterns of organization
(Limerick & Cunnington, 1993, pp. 38-39). He outlines seven corporate structures
and their typical patterns of performance, which he identifies as gestalts, archetypes
or configurations, into which companies commonly fall according to their internal
and external factors (Mintzberg, 1980, 1989). Mintzberg’s (1979) first five corpo
rate structures are literally and schematically structured into configurations, graphi
cally illustrating the form of the strategic apex down to the operating core. The five
configurations are the simple structure, the machine bureaucracy, the professional
bureaucracy, the divisionalized form, and the adhocracy. More recently, he has
added a sixth type, the missionary organization, and a seventh type, the political or
ganization (Mintzberg, 1989) and admitted to the possibility of more.
Mintzberg’s work is largely theoretical. Miller (1980) follow-up Mintzberg’ s
work, but present 10 empirically derived archetypes from undisguised cases pub
lished in Fortune or the Harvard Case Clearing House set up a new approach. Their
novel approach takes a quantum view, treating organizations as complex entities, re
lating strategy, structure and environmental elements to the natural tendency of those
organizations to coalesce into quantum states, again using the term “configurations.'*
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
8
Multiagency Partnership as Adaptatloa Strategy
ia Taipei City Govenuaeat
The presidential election of the year 2000 propelled Taiwan into a new era in
which the transition of power is no longer locally considered a novelty. The road
into full democratic development will go more smoothly as a result of this successful
election. As the ensuing political-societal transformations are intensifying, the state
of public affairs has taken on new meanings. With new issues emerging and old
problems persistently plaguing administrative efficacy, the various stakeholders of
government have embraced completely new perspectives toward the undertakings of
government (Taket & White, 2000). Hence, for any government with visionary
leadership, it is imperative to adopt a new set of policy instruments along with crea
tive organizational devises. As a matter of fact, the Taipei City Government has
acted responsively to the call for a more effective and efficient delivery of public
services, multiagency partnerships being a focal point of the ensuing undertakings
since 1994 when the DPP took over the mayorship from the KMT.
With a staff of over 80,000 serving a growing population of nearly 2.3 mil
lion residents, the Taipei City Government serving an international metropolis has to
confront taxing challenges of various kinds. Horizontal policy issues are key to an
effective government. In response to its citizens’ rising expectations, the govern
ment has set as its policy priorities computerized information networks, clean and
safe residential areas, urban regeneration, garbage management, social welfare for
the underprivileged, and numerous others. All these programs invariably demand
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
9
coordination, cooperation, and collaboration among agencies involved. Daka-
Mulwanda, Thornburg, Filbert, and Klein (199S, p. 21) suggest that cooperation,
coordination, and collaboration constitute a hierarchy. That is, interorganizational
relationships become more sophisticated, complex, and effective for problem solving
through progressing from cooperation to coordination to collaboration. They de
scribe cooperation as organisations or people simply working together and as coor
dination the sharing of information between two or more organizations which in
volves joint planning, while collaborative settings are organizational and interor
ganizational structures where resources, power, and authority are shared. Ulrich and
Lake (1990, pp. 207-215), from the perspective of influence, identify two positions
of cooperation: negotiation and compromise, with negotiation being the art of or
chestrating resources and compromise involving trading off resources. They fur
ther point out that collaboration as a path to influence can take the form of either
problem-solving or commitment.
In practice, there are 83 formal committees or task forces in active operation
based on the spirit and necessity of multiagency partnerships. The data was pro
vided by the Department of Personnel Administration, Taipei City Government,
March 2000. However, the need for more multiagency partnerships is reported to be
on the increase, as is confirmed by a recent survey conducted between March and
April 2000. Since there have been few objective, systematic evaluations and little
research on the practical gains from so much interdepartmental effort, this study
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
10
attempts to explore factors, processes, and configurations conducive or harmful to
an optimal outcomes. It is hoped that a multiagency partnership model emerging
from this research process may help not only solve practical problems that the Taipei
City Government will be facing but also make a contribution to the field of public
management.
Organization of the Remainder of the Study
With these problems and problem-solving perspectives in mind, the remain
ing parts of the study are organized in five more chapters. Chapter 2 reviews the
evolution of organizational forms from hierarchy to networks, examines the institu
tion of multiagency partnerships as a new organizational necessity, especially in
local governance, and presents these partnerships' characteristics in a systematic
manner.
Chapter 3, the main body of the study, sketches the research framework using
coalignment as the core concept in its empirical exploration of effective configura
tion for multiagency partnerships in Taipei City Government. The research design
employs both qualitative and quantitative methods, notable among which are
Quinn's Management Competency Scale (19% ), the Nominal Group Technique, and
in-depth interviews; these are integrated in ways to answer the six specific research
questions.
Chapter 4 presents results and findings under the rubric of those factors
critical in discussion of the external environment, internal arrangements, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
1 1
effectiveness. Specifically, the five major environmental concerns addressed include
functional integration, resource dependency, wicked issues, change and transforma
tion, and information technology. Further, the four internal variables under exami
nation are critical tasks, culture, formal organizations, and people. Meanwhile, there
is discussion of what constitutes effective incentive practices as perceived by the re
spondents to four in-depth interviews and the survey.
Chapter 5 synthesizes all relevant findings in categorically answering the
six research questions. The last chapter, chapter 6, goes further to reflect upon criti
cal concepts and smart practices for practitioners to achieve effective interagency
collaboration.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
12
CHAPTER 2
RATIONALE AND RELEVATION RESEARCH
From Bureaucracy to Fluidity: New Organizational Forms
Based on Weber (1978), bureaucracy as a form of organization is character
ized by centralization, hierarchy, authority, discipline, rules, career, division of labor,
and tenure. Throughout the 20th century, it was the most common archetype of or
ganization design. Yet, despite the continued importance of bureaucracies for organ
izational behavior, new forms of organization have increasingly taken center stage
(Barringer & Harrison, 2000, pp. 367-368; Clegg & Hardy, 1999, p. 8).
In the environments external to the organization, new entities form chains,
clusters, networks, and strategic alliances, which further facilitate the breaking down
of the organization, calling into question the relevance of an “organizational” focus
(Burton, 1995; Das & Teng, 1997; Gulati, 1996). Inside the organization, the strictly
delineated boundaries of the bureaucracy are also breaking down as a result of or
ganizational changes to foster empowerment, flatness, and flexibility (Uzzi, 1997).
With the newly found fluidity vivid and alive in an organization's external
environments, interorganizational collaboration has become increasingly interesting
and attractive because of its potential to solve both business and social problems
(Ostroff, 1999; Ring & Van de Ven, 1994). Much research has reached the conclu
sion that interorganizational collaboration may take a variety of forms: “collective”
strategy based on the formation of cooperative arrangements, such as joint ventures
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
13
and alliances, partnerships and network organizations, and virtual corporations
(Byrne, 1993; Clegg & Hardy, 1999; Tully, 1993).
Smith, Carroll and Ashford (1995), in their review of all the past major
research efforts on cross-organizational collaboration, find that an overwhelming
focus is on interorganizational collaboration (62%), with the rest concerning either
individual partnerships (21 %) or inter-departmental partnerships (17%). All the
studies tried to explain how actual partnerships work from the perspectives of hori
zontal and vertical cooperation without foiling back on any single dominant theory
as a solid basis for their exploration. In their research designs, most were field-based
(66%), some were based exclusively on case studies (24%) and only 10% of them
were experimental.
Further, according to Smith and others (1995), the focal collaboration issues
were largely divided into three categories: the origin and development of interor-
ganiza-tional partnerships, the dynamics of collaboration, and partnership effective
ness evaluation. Specifically, some scholars proposed to distinguish between struc
tural factors and psychological ones affecting partnership effectiveness. Others ad
vocates of the dynamic model of interorganizational collaboration draw attention to
the interacting, dynamic process of partners, particularly during the different stages
of initializing, processing, and reconfiguration (Ring & Van de Ven, 1994). For a
more appropriate assessment of partnership effectiveness some researchers also sug
gested adding noneconomic items, such as improved decision-making processes and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
improved competitive advantage along with the overall quality improvement of a
working partnership.
In a similar spirit, for the current study’ s purpose, partnerships are recognized
and accepted as a general form of organization. In contrast to markets and hierar
chies, they may be conceptually perceived as having the following characteristics
(Clegg & Hardy, 1999, pp. 9-10; Powell 1990; Thorelli, 1986).
They (partnerships) can take many different forms ranging from the formal to
informal; they may exist simply to exchange information or may be involved in an
array of joint activities; they may be explicitly mediated by network “brokers” or
emerge from the initiatives of the firms themselves. Partnerships appear to have a
number of advantages as a form of organizing, including: (a) risk spreading and re
source sharing to avoid costly duplication of independent effort; (b) enhanced flexi
bility compared with other forms of integration, such as a takeovers or mergers; and
(c) increased access to know-how and information through collaborative relations
before the formal knowledge stage.
However, new external relations require matching arrangements within the
organization concerned. Specifically, not only does the architecture of the organiza
tion along with its embedded knowledge need to be reconfigured differently, the or
ganization must also possess both the mindset and the organizational structures to
actively facilitate teamwork, collaboration, and learning (Mankin, Cohen, & Bikson,
1998, pp. 309-329). Another factor of equally great importance is the role leadership
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
15
plays in the new organizational arrangements. Advocates suggest that leadership be
team based and leaders be equipped with skills in team building, conflict resolution
and problem solving. In addition, information must be made available not only at
the highest levels but also to lower-level staff (Galbraith et al., 1993, p 297). In the
meantime, competence and skills in social networking on the part of leadership and
staff affect inter-organizational effectiveness.
Another major change concerns the nature of hierarchy. Due to then' persis
tent signification “as a social order of rank, status and privilege, hierarchies become
one means among many to coordinate and control actions across people, knowledge,
time and space” (Peters, 2000, p. 19). Within hierarchical layers, pressures may lead
to increasing teamwork given the common need for sharing expertise, knowledge,
and financial resources, rather a job requirements (Gray, 1998). Indeed, much re
search has suggested that such lateral organizational forms tend to show the charac
teristics of openness, trust, empowerment, and commitment (Dodgson, 1993;
Fairtlough, 1994).
The Necessity for Multiagency Partnerships in Local Governance
Today public managers still operate in a more-or-Iess bureaucratic setting
called an agency, or bureau, or department. Often, to deal with public management
problems and deliver much needed public services in a satisfactory manner, an
agency needs or requires the concerted actions of other departments as well as other
interested institutions (Pierre, 1998; O’Toole, 2000, p. 2). Consequently, some
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
16
“complex, cross-boundary institutional arrangements like ad hoc committees or in
teragency task forces” are called for to meet policy or program requirements.
O’Toole (1997, p. 45) names these complex, interorganizational, multiactor patterns
as “networks.” He refers in this concept to “structures of interdependence involving
multiple organizations or parts thereof where one unit is not merely the formal sub
ordinate of the others in some larger hierarchical arrangement. Networks exhibit
some structural stability but extend beyond formally established linkages and policy-
legitimated ties. The notion of network excludes mere formal hierarchies and perfect
markets, but it includes a very wide range of structures in between.”
According to O’Toole (2000, p. 3), partnerships at the local level can extend
in many directions, including interdepartmental initiatives within a municipal set
ting. Horizontally, their extension may include collaborative efforts with other, usu
ally contiguous, local governments and their departments. Partnerships might also
extend '‘ upward” as to set up a regional network of relationships via metropolitan or
regional governance institutions, as well as “vertical” intergovernmental arrange
ments. Linking up with the private sector or even nonprofit organizations in patterns
of public problem solving and service delivery is also likely.
In fact, empirical research and evidence, particularly detailed quantitative in
formation on local government management, shows that core local management
functions must take into account these realities and that managers typically find
themselves devoting substantial energies in formal and informal bridging activities
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
17
with others outside their own units—seeking to “make a mesh of things” in the inter
ests of building policy coherence (O’Toole, 2000, p. 5). Therefore, the long legacy
of “stovepipe management,” where managers focus simply on running their own
shop with precious little integration with others in the conduct of their responsi-
bilties, would appear to be a vanishing phenomenon (Ingraham & Kneedler, 2000).
In other words, instead of the standard managerial (unctions of old (planning, orga
nizing, staffing, directing, and so forth), local public managers operating in networks
spend extensive amounts of time in patterns like “information seeking from network
partners, adjustment seeking, assisting in policy making horizontally, engaging in
forming partnerships and joint strategies, consolidating policy efforts, seeking finan
cial resources, employing joint financial incentives, contracting for planning and im
plementation, establishing project-specific partnerships, and seeking technical re
sources” (O’Toole, 2000, p. 11).
Thus far, the world of public management scholarship has not provided ro
bust theory or analysis as tools to help public managers decipher such settings and
determine sensible choices. Therefore, the current study, aware of these complex
forms of “collaboratives” and tasks upon public managers, is primarily focused on
interdepartmental efforts within a local government, the Taipei City Government. In
Europe, social scientists have shown that locally-situated managers facing practical
challenges like stimulating growth of jobs and small-business economic activities
confront a multiorganizational terrain (Hull & Hjern, 1986). In the U.S., some
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
18
research has shown that a substantial proportion of the public programs managed by
public administrators are interorganizational (O’Toole & Montjoy, 1984).
Partnerships: Meanings* Models, and Inspirations
In private and public organizations alike, a partnership is recognized as a pol
icy instrument whose effective employment may contribute to organizational goals.
In the private sector, enterprises form strategic alliances and keritsu with allies and
organize themselves using matrix, product team, and task force arrangements to gain
a competitive edge and niche. Publications on the issues and strategies of organiza
tional integration are numerous, such as those by Barringer and Harrison (2000),
Beamish and Killing(1997), Child and Faulkner (1998), Eberts (1997), and Sagawa
and Segal (2000). In the public sector, in contrast, the perspectives of organizational
theory, political science and public policy help people understand how a partnership
as an organization form facilitates the solving of problems. In a discussion of build
ing interagency collaborative capacity (ICC) to cope with challenging tasks, Eugene
Bardach (1998) employs a craftsman theory in proposing a strategic co-alignment of
the three components of ICC: materials (e.g., human nature and social dynamics,
etc.), smart practices, and critical skills and abilities.
Guy Peters (1998a) defines partnership based on five characteristics:
1. Partnership involves two or more actors or participants.
2. Each participant is a principal.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
19
3. Members in a partnership enjoy an enduring relationship and con
tinuously interact with one another.
4. Each of the participants brings some tangible or intangible resources
to the partnership.
5. All partners share responsibility for the outcomes of their activities.
In addition, Guy Peters (1998a) also explores possible preconditions and in
centives for forming a partnership. He claims that members form a partnership be
cause they have mutual interests and are willing to exchange resources. It is equally
likely that a partnership exists because participants have no other means by which to
achieve their mutual goals. Furthermore, leaders may use a partnership as an inter
vention mechanism or an excuse to avoid blame for a policy failure. Further, incen
tives to motivate the forming of partnerships may be coercive, remunerative, and
normative. As for as individuals are concerned, their motivations may be alienative,
calculative, or moral. What Guy Peters describe here is drawn from A. Etzioni’s
book, A Comparative Analysis o f Complex Organization (1961, p.12). With similar
perspective, O’Toole (2000, p. 10) suggests that “in standard departments, the incen
tives to coordinate action would seem to be three: authority (B cooperates with A
because B feels it is an obligation to do so), common interest (B cooperates with A
because B feels that doing so would serve B’s own purposes), and exchange (B co
operate with A because B receives something from A, or from elsewhere, that makes
it worthwhile to go along).”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
20
According to the definition suggested by Guy Peters (1961), elements of a
multiagency partnership include actors, interactions, resources, and responsibilities.
It is by no accident that problems arise when the elements interact in the context of a
large organization with many units and interests. Questions worthy of further elabo
ration are plentiful, such as “are participants coerced or voluntary?” “What re
sources each participant is capable of contributing?’ ' and “How do the actors share
credit and blame?”
Sharon Dawes (1996, pp. 377-394) in his study of New York State Govern
ment's information sharing among agencies proposes that multiagency partnerships
do not appear automatically simply because of the existence of common problems.
On the contrary, it is the incentive to solve respective internal problems that moti
vates the forging of cooperation. Besides, some conditions in the external environ
ment are also required for the needed partnerships to become operational. Dawes
also offers three preconditions for the formation of partnerships:
Each participant is able to benefit from the problem-solving partnership.
From the concept of managing people for competitive advantage, Ulrich and Lake
(1990, pp. 19-20) also suggest the three key elements of partnerships. First, partner
ships exist when there is mutual respect among employees. Second, partnerships
exist when each member of the partnership operates as a staff leader. Third, partner
ships exist through unity of voice.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
21
1. Each participant is able to benefit from the problem-solving part
nership.
2. Availability of resources necessary for solving common problems.
3. The commitment of institutional capacity is strong enough to bring
about interagency collaboration.
Based on the reasoning above, one cannot expect organizations to share
resources automatically with others without conceiving of gains from an improved
image, serving self-interests, or more influence.
Likewise, Oliver (1990) has extracted six main “contingencies” or motives
for the establishment and maintenance of interorganizational collaboration.
1. Necessity or the need for organizations to meet legal-political re
quirements;
2. Asymmetry: Where organizations are motivated to dominate other
organizations or to preserve their own autonomy from being compromised.
3. Stability: Environmental certainty is maintained through inter
organizational relations.
4. Efficiency: The incentive is to reduce interagency transaction costs.
5. Legitimacy: Organizations attempt to justify their activities and to be
seen as law-abiding and socially responsible.
6. Reciprocity: Organizations jointly pursue common or mutually bene
ficial goals.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
22
A close examination suggests that these contingencies overlap to a certain degree
and interact with each other, and they are affected by external factors.
In discussing empowerment and service quality, Kenneth Kemagham (1993,
p. 58) points out that a partnership includes at least one public sector agency work
ing with either a private sector agency or other governmental agencies of a different
or the same level. Strictly speaking, a partnership is a formal agreement among par
ticipating parties to share power in order to pursue jointly common interests and mu
tual benefits (Kemagham, 1993, p. 58). Broadly defined, it is also a relationship in
which one agency shares power, work, support, and information with others in order
to achieve goals and interests they share. Kemagham further classifies partnerships
into four different categories in terms of the participants' power relationships:
1. Collaborative partnership. This is a real or power sharing partnership.
Each partner during the decision making process has power to influence all and to
commit resources into the partnership. Partners become part of a team and give up
some autonomy in order to achieve shared or compatible objectives. An ideal out
come is achieved when decisions are made as a result of consensus building.
2. Operational partnership. This is a partnership where the work is
shared but the power is not. It puts emphasis on “harmonization of actions rather
than joint management of their respective jurisdictions and the joint enforcement of
acts and regulations” established by the participating organizations (Kemagham,
1993, p. 63). Usually, the power lies in the hands of the side that controls the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
23
resources. However, in informal settings, members are still able to show some recip
rocity by allowing some forms of influence.
3. Contributory partnership. This kind of partnership exists where one
agency agrees to provide resources (especially funding) to the partnership without
active involvement in the decision-making and actual operation.
4. Consultative partnership. A partnership of this nature forms when a
public organization actively seeks advice from individuals, groups and organizations
outside government that are equipped with sufficient expertise or knowledge in a
particular policy field or policy issue.
Another possible category, as indicated by Kemagham, is the so-called
“phony” partnership because the partnership is established, usually by a public
agency, to either co-opt or simply manipulate the stakeholders.
Alan Harding (1998, pp. 71-92), in studying the U.K. experience regarding
the motives of organizations in partnerships and the relationship between problem-
types and the institutional capacity available to deal with them, divides partnerships
into three types:
1. Defensive partnership. This kind of relationship exists when an
agency seeks alliance with other agencies in order to accomplish tasks it cannot deal
with alone either because of budget reductions by the government or the service
items demanded have increased beyond its resource capacity.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
24
2. Offensive partnership. A partnership of this nature develops when an
agency wishes to undertake new tasks or fulfill new responsibilities requiring re
sources, expertise or knowledge beyond its competence, and hence demands contri
butions from partners with appropriate competencies.
3. Shotgun partnership. This happens when the superior finds it neces
sary to realign the actors so that the new team or organizational rearrangement may
approach tasks more effectively than any single agency could accomplish them
alone.
From the above discussion, the formation of partnerships as a trend of in
creasing importance can be further analyzed and better understood from three broad
aspects:
1. How the external environment along with its ever-evolving changes
has made more complicated the problems that decision-makers have to confront.
2. How the capacities of partnership institutions have been reduced and
redefined through the formal pooling of resources.
3. How the motivation and behavior of particular agencies and actors
have been transformed as a consequence of the above-mentioned changes in the ex
ternal environment and within the institution.
To make partnerships work optimally, it is both urgent and imperative to in
tegrate the legitimate concerns of state, market, and civil society. Out of necessity
and practical gains, we have to transcend ideological divides such as the market's
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
25
emphasis on efficiency and competition, the state’s monopoly on legitimacy and au
thority, and the civil society’s core values of volunteerism and citizenship. There
fore, Michael Keating (1998, p. 164) suggests a new configuration of power rela
tionships or partnerships, which can be conceptualized as either “policy networks” or
“governance.” With the public and nonpublic sectors working together, the new
configuration is significant:
From the managerial point of view, partnership is a means by which public
agencies can accomplish their policy goals in an environment more complex and
challenging than ever.
From the political science perspective, partnership involves in the policy
process a wide range of social and economic actors, making it look like American
pluralism at work. Organizationally speaking, a partnership is a self-regulating sys
tem with its own internal logic (Stroker, 1998, pp. 34-51; Lowndes & Skelcher,
1998).
However, there have been obstacles, difficulties, and constraints in the way
of putting partnerships to work. From empirical studies, researchers have identified
factors and causes that deflate the efficacy of partnerships and cause them to render
less than ideal public service delivery or program results. Pressman and Wildavsky
(1973, pp. 94-124) in their classic, insightful study analyze the complexity of joint
action to which agencies intent on initiating a partnership must pay special heed:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
26
Barbara Gray (1998, p. 472), when mentioning the nature of collaborative problems,
suggests nine similar characteristics.
1. Multiplicity of participants and perspectives.
a. Direct incompatibility with other commitments.
b. No direct incompatibility, but a preference for other programs.
c. Simultaneous commitments to other projects.
d. Dependence on others who lack a sense of urgency in the
project.
e. Differences o f opinion on leadership and proper organiza
tional roles.
f. Legal and procedural differences.
g. Agreement coupled with lack of power.
h. Multiplicity o f decisions and the decreasing probability of
program success.
i. Different goals and paths.
j. The emergence of unexpected decisions,
k. The anatomy o f delay.
Other scholars such as Robert Stoker (1998), Guy Peters (1998a, 2000) and
Eugene Bardach (1998) have also explored what multiagency coordination and col
laboration tend to encounter, such as boundary-spanning, turf-fighting, redundancy
of rules, regulations and procedures, lacunae, policy incoherence, and so on.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
27
Accordingly, O’Toole (2000, pp. 21-22) suggests a number of points managers and
executives may consider when running a partnership. All of them are insightful ideas
and may serve as points of reference for the study. A brief discussion follows.
First, managers must recognize that managing in and through networks is a
process different in many ways from that of managing one’s own employees and
budget. Generally speaking, what matters is a sense of common purpose and pro
ductive exchanges for the sake of network building and enhancing.
Secondly, managers must be alert to the structure of the network, or potential
network, particularly the members involved and the roles they can play technically,
functionally, administratively, and even politically. Managers need to recognize the
level of support for the collaborative effort across the various units, knowing there
are major advocates as well as potential opponents. What are the probable ways for
achieving optimal performance, and how may they cultivate them?
Thirdly, managers must look for opportunities to build trust in the network
and encourage information sharing among partners. When possible and appropriate,
they should use well-established clusters of units and staff that have some history of
working productively together so that genuine, lasting trust may be leveraged for
new collaboration.
Fourthly, managers must encourage flexibility and adaptive implementation
patterns in the process of seeking solutions that promote policy and program success.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
28
Executives seek reductions in uncertainty and responsibility shirking, while encour
aging ways of sharing costs and benefits to maintain interest and contributions.
And finally, managers are constantly in need of new creative options for
problem solving, but it may be necessary and more sensible to adjust the network
structure by means of relocating or replacing participants, altering links of interde
pendence, influencing the choice of lead department, and other practically smart
moves. O'Toole (2000, pp. 21-22) proposed 13 points and concluded that“ ... local
public managers can implement strategies for encouraging policy coherence in net
work settings. Such managers will typically not be in control, but their efforts can
be very consequential."
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
29
CHAPTER 3
THE STUDY
The Case of Taipei City Government
As the cultural, economic, and political center of Taiwan, Taipei enjoys a
position and resources unparalleled by those of the other cities in this island country.
With rising expectations from all walks of life and fierce political competition from
all parties, the Taipei City Government (TCG) and its policy effectiveness are con
stantly subject to close scrutiny by the public. To win public approval of his per
formance and support for his continuance in power, the elected mayor of TCG is by
necessity conscious of all possible reform initiatives.
Recognizing the paramount importance of multiagency coordination and co
operation, the Taipei City Government promulgated in 199S a policy guideline; the
primary goal was to enforce the practice and spirit of partnerships as a reform drive.
Consequently, there has been a stable annual increase of around 12 new partnerships
in the form of committees, task forces, and ad hoc task forces between 1996 and
2000 (Appendix A). However, a survey in March 2000 has revealed that there has
been little reliable and systematic information from which the top TCG decision
makers may draw regarding the partnerships’ effectiveness, despite a built-in institu
tional mechanism for supervision and assessment (i.e., the Commission of Research,
Development & Evaluation). In fact, participants in the 83 inter-departmental
or multiagency committees or task forces in operation as of March 2000 have
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
30
uniformly expressed an urgent need to acquire know-how and skills in making part
nerships work more effectively. Participants have found themselves facing mount
ing responsibilities, particularly those for partnership implementation (Appendix B).
In late 1996, TCG conducted a comprehensive survey asking its agencies to
specify partnership cases which they had had difficulty implementing or accomplish
ing. Out of a total of 129 cases reported, an analysis of 112 of them was done. As
the data show, the three agencies encountering frequent implementation problems
are the Department of Public Works (54/112), Department of City Planning
(17/112), and Department of Mass Transit (15/112). Most of the cases involve pub
lic construction work (Appendix C).
To build a base for this study, this researcher conducted a follow-up survey
with the Taipei City Government concerning multiagency partnerships. First, the
researcher contacted the Research, Development & Evaluation Commission, which
is charged with the responsibility to oversee multiagency partnerships to inquire
about representative cases (i.e., successful as well as foiled ones). Next, the secretar
ies general of the primary and secondary agencies of Taipei City Government were
asked to list two to five multiagency partnerships issues that they considered contro
versial, having great impact on TCG's image, or hard to accomplish without creating
a performance gap. Examination of the 152 cases and issues furnished shows that
agencies dealing with public reconstruction and works still have much room for im
provement in executing their partnership tasks (Appendix D).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
31
After preliminary exploratory work, numerous questions of importance or
urgency remain. First, even with so many committees, task forces, and special teams
in operation for years, does the top management of TCG truly understand the nature
and constraints of multiagency partnerships? Secondly, does an organizational cul
ture exist that embodies the values and spirit of partnerships? Furthermore, do pub
lic managers possess skills and abilities necessary for successfully implementing
cross-cutting policy? Another interesting and very significant question is whether
the Taipei City Government’s experience in employing partnerships corresponds
theoretically to what modem literature has proposed? Or are partnerships in effect
treated as a policy tools serving, not to solve substantial problems, but mainly to
function as symbols with the maintenance of legitimacy as the ultimate concern.
This latter thesis is elaborated by Stone (1997) and Guy Peters and Savoir (199S).
Lastly, how fragile and vulnerable are partnerships to the political identities and per
sonal preferences of the top leadership?
While trying to find answers to these and some other questions by relying on
relevant theories and through exploring empirical cases of partnerships provided by
the Taipei City Government, this research will test and verify the correspondence
between theory and practice of partnerships, hoping ultimately to enrich the content
of public management as a field of growing significance.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
32
Research Framework
As a form of organization, multiagency partnerships tend to be affected by
the external environment and internal organizational arrangements. As noted in pre
vious chapters, the strategic fit or strategic coalignment between these two profiles
impacts on the effectiveness of an organization (Veliyath & Srinivasant, 1995). For
example, if an agency does not possess resources that are needed by other agencies
or cannot effectively help achieve better effectiveness working with others, then it
will not meet the qualifications of strategic fit (Child & Faulkner, 1998, pp. 93-95).
Aldrich (1979) in Organizations and Environments, claims that the goals of
an organization may be shaped by its environment. For example, the city govern
ment must execute the policy within the budget set forth by the city council, or it
must reorganize itself in order to respond to serious issues arising in the environ
ment. In addition, organizational boundaries may change in accordance with the
mode of governance, thus causing different effects to couple with those caused by
the environment. Naturally, the strategy and technology adopted by the organization
have to fit congruently with the demands of its environment. Therefore, the envi
ronment is without doubt a great factor that forces and facilitates the forming of mul
tiagency partnerships (Kickert, Klijn, & Koppenjan, 1997).
To study the questions that may affect the effectiveness of multiagency part
nerships, it is of practical value to adopt the core concepts of strategic coalignment,
which include the external environment, internal organizational arrangements, and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
33
organizational effectiveness. Based on preliminary findings and for the purpose of
the study, the researcher proposes a conceptual framework that integrates elements
considered important to a research design that deals with partnerships (Figure 1).
For public administrators to manage partnerships with smart practices, it is highly
desirable to achieve overall consistency and complimentarily in a policy context
where elements of the external environment, internal organizational arrangements,
and institutional efficacy interact in an intimate manner.
The External Environment
As partnership literature has suggested, a multiagency partnership is often
formed to meet the four major needs of the external environment for functional inte
gration, resource dependency, solving wicked issues, dealing with change and un
certainty, and information technology (Alexander, 1995; Aldrich, 1997; Child &
Faulkner, 1998; Chisholm, 1989; Guy Peters, 1998a, 1998b, 2000; Pierre, 1998). A
short explanation is given below.
1. Functional integration. Government, in response to an environment
which is growing ever more complicated, has over-differentiated itself, causing
many problems regarding jurisdiction and policy execution. Although some earlier
reforms have emphasized strategic management and integration of policies, more
common pattern of reform has been to decentralize, devolve and disaggregate the
public a sector. These reforms may have generated some efficiency benefits for the
public sector, but they have made governments that were already fragmented
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
34
External Environment Internal Organizational
1. Functional integration Arrangement
2. Resource dependency 1. Critical tasks
3. Wicked issues 2. Culture
4. Uncertainty & change 3. Formal organization
5. Information technology 4. People
Strategic fit
Effectiveness
Figure 1. A Proposed Conceptual Framework for the Study of Multiagency
Partnerships
Source: Based on Veliyath and Srinivasant, 1995, p. 210; Tushman and O'Reilly,
1997.
vertically even more diverse and fragmented institutions. Therefore, a subsequent
round of reform has been instituted that stresses the need for restoring some greater
integration among the component structures of the public sector, and creating greater
coherence (Peters, 2000, pp. 10-11). Forming multiagency partnerships to realize
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
35
vertical and horizontal integration is often considered a strategic choice (Das &
Teng, 2000).
2. Resource dependency. A collaborative government may use partner
ships for the purpose of delivering more with less, sharing overhead, and/or levering
in new resources. What is equally important is the fact that partnerships may make
possible the development of strategic direction and coordination within an organiza
tional landscape that is getting fragmented (Lowndes & Skelcher, 1998, p. 315;
Rhodes, 1997, p. xii).
3. Wicked issues. Wicked issues are messy problems whose solution, as
Rhodes (1997) notes, demands the hierarchy of the public bureaucracy to “establish
lateral, diagonal, and vertical relationships with other bodies operating at different
tiers and in associated policy fields.” Thus, the growth of partnerships within the
government structure reflects the government’s growing ability to deal with wicked
issues and handle intransigence. Strategically speaking, it is a reorganization of
governmental structure to adjust to its environment.
3. Change and uncertainty. Changes in regulations, or social, economic
and political situations can motivate the formation of partnerships among govern
ment agencies in order to reduce transaction costs or bureaucratic costs resulting
from the complexity and dynamism of a modern society.
4. Information technology. Policy makers have to ponder how new in
formation technologies have in a very fundamental way changed the nature of work.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
36
As a result of new information technologies, work has become more abstract, more
likely to be designed for teams, and more likely to cross boundaries than to be con
fined within particular organizations, departments, or functions. To cope with the
new realities, organizations need to become more flexible, empowering, and team-
based (Mohrman et aL, 1998, p. 154).
Internal Organizational Arrangements
Internal organization arrangements involve strategic resource allocations, or
ganizational structures, value-leadership styles, and culture. These factors all affect
the choice of strategy (Veliyath & Srinivasant, 1995). Specifically, organizations in
pursuit of strategic fit set up structures and human resources so as to meet the needs,
pressures and changes within the environment. Tushman and O'Reilly (1997) con
tribute a congruence model that facilitates better understanding of the internal work
ings of an organization, particularly how an organization reacts to the uncertainty
and dynamism of the environment (Figure 2). The congruence model contains four
factors, including critical tasks, culture, formal organization, and people; alignment
of these factors can contribute to effectiveness.
1. Critical tasks Multiagency partnerships are intended to accomplish
the tasks necessary to achieve their organization's strategic goals and vision. There
fore, a legitimate concern of public managers is whether the structure, systems, re
wards, people, and culture of the organization are appropriate. In other words, all
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
37
Critical Tasks
People Culture
Formal Organization
Figure 2. Organizational Arrangements
Source: Tushman and O’Reilly, 1997, p. 59
organizational arrangements are evaluated against the question, Do they help with or
hinder accomplishing critical tasks?
2. Culture. Culture reflects the values and the norms of an organization
and its members. In a multiagency partnership or strategic alliance, culture plays a
critical role in facilitating task accomplishment. The inner meaning and the role of
culture within the organization may be controversial (Bolman & Deal, 1997, p. 231),
yet the elements essential to a successful “partnership culture” such as trust, empow
erment, and team building are the organizational software that needs to be developed
and cultivated.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
38
According to Mckinney and Howard (1998, p. 118), culture affects how peo
ple perceive and interpret the environment, it defines the value and meaning of a
goal worthy of pursuit, it creates means and know-how to facilitate accomplishment
of goals, and it shapes the norms and criteria that guide organizational behavior.
Simply put, the organizational culture is an “informal pattern of interactions that
drives agencies, informal structures, power, and communication networks”
(Tushman & O’Reilly, 1997, p. 92).
3. Formal organizations. The formal arrangements of an organization
include the stated structure, roles, procedures, measures, and systems that managers
use to direct, control, and motivate individuals and groups to perform the organiza
tion’s critical tasks (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1997, pp. 86-87). If a multiagency part
nership is a strategic choice for task accomplishment, then a critical question to ask
remains. What type of governance structure is most appropriate for a particular
task/problem setting? Using the “problem contingency” approach, which is based on
the assumption that governance structures should vary with the problem setting in
which they are embedded, Hult and Walcott (1990) propose nine governance struc
tures based on the two dimensions of goal consensus and technology certainty,
which are part of the internal organizational milieu (Table 1).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
39
Table 1. Decision Settings and Appropriate Governance Structure
Technologies
State of Beliefs
Goal (State of Preferences About Possible Outcomes)
About Causation
Uncertainty Consensus Controversy
1 2 3
Uncertainty Inspiration Market Collegial—
Consensual
Collegial—
Competitive
Collegial—
Mediative
4 5 6
Certainty Collegial—
Consensual
Hierarchical Collegial—
Competitive
Collegial—
Mediative
7 8 9
Controversy Acversarial Adjudicative Indeterminate
Source: Hult and Walcott, 1990, p. 72.
Cell 1: Inspiration and market structures
When the goal and the technology are both uncertain, transforming leader
ship is needed to redefine goals or to lead the decision making process from the state
of uncertainty. Another solution is resorting to a market-like structure and thereby
reducing the decision-maker’s responsibility for the eventual outcome.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
40
Cells 2 and 4: Collegial Consensual Structures
With clear ends but uncertain technology (cell 2), organizations should
encourage search behavior that attempts to explore and chart possible technical
responses and their potential consequences. Collaboration among experts means the
use of partnerships as a means of getting new expertise and experience as well as
free and creative discussions and solutions. However, when technology is certain
but goals are ill-defined (cell 4), what is urgently needed is the free exchange of
ideas, decision rules, and norms for the purpose of developing consensus and pro
moting collaboration.
Cells 3 and 6: Collegial Competitive and Collegial Mediative Structures
When the goal is controversial, the actor finds it necessary to engage in give-
and take or negotiation. Similar to law-making bodies, collegial-competitive struc
tures share the characteristics of collegiality, representation, bargaining, and voting
rules. Collegial meditative structures offer arenas and a mediator to help the
competing sides to clarify their differences or search for common ground in the
process of discussion and negotiation. This structure is more effective when
technical know-how is certain and stakeholder representation and formal decision
rules are working institutionally.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
41
Cell 5: Hierarchical Structures
When goals and means are both certain, the decision making process can be
fully standardized and programmed. In these circumstances, a hierarchical structure
is most appropriate.
Cell 7: Adversarial Structures
When multiparty controversy arises over technology and goals are not clear,
reducing conflict by exploring points of dispute is a major concern; while avoiding
being captured in decision making by so-called experts is o f equal importance. Of
tentimes, the final deciding party should probably be elected officials, political ap
pointees, or others who are held accountable to stakeholders.
Cell 8: Adjudicative Structures
When there is a consensus on goals, but controversy over technology erupts
between two sides, the decision-maker does not cope directly with technical contro
versy but instead acts on the burden of proof. Adjudicative structures tend to render
the disputing parties either the winner or the loser, so regulatory agencies rely heav
ily on legal-like mechanisms to maintain their decisions’ legitimacy.
Cell 9: Indeterminate Structures
When both ends and means are in dispute, decision-making becomes
extremely difficult since discussion, negotiation, or coalitions will likely go no
where. Under these circumstances, top leadership has to take control by pursuing
bureaucratic rationality, accountability, and hence, legitimacy.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
42
On summing up the nine governance structures, one may conclude that with
a different task or issue in focus, governance structures should vary accordingly. In
designing these structures, one has to take into account the appropriateness o f goals
and the feasibility of technology or means, while balancing the values of bureau
cratic rationality, accountability, representation, and legitimacy. In other words,
decision makers should be cognizant of the most appropriate structures to adopt in
helping with the accomplishment of critical tasks. Therefore, one may examine and
evaluate the Taipei City Government’s multiagency partnerships based on the ap
proach discussed so for.
People. People in a specific partnership are the key to success. To ensure
that their people are aligned with critical tasks, culture, and work processes, public
managers must assess four aspects of the human resources available: competencies,
motives, demographics, and cultural background (Tushman & O’Reilly, 1997, p. 83)
Whereas, according to Bardach’s (1998) craftsmen’s theory, purposive practitioners
endowed with public spiritedness and creativity are indispensable in a congruent sys
tem. Further, the best craftsmen are executives skilled at perceiving opportunities in
the materials available at hand, recognizing and using possible smart practices to ex
ploit the wide-ranging human and social resources. Therefore, for partnerships to
function effectively, participants are better evaluated based on criteria such as com
petencies, collaborative attitude and mutual trust, task accomplishment orientation
over turf consciousness, and leaming-to-practice capability.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
43
Quinn, Facerman, Thompson and McGrath (1996) synthesize into a “Com
peting Values Framework” four management models: (a) Rational Goal, (b) Internal
Process, (c) Human Relations, and (d) Open Systems. Their construct takes a
systems view of management, pointing out that effective managers need to master a
variety of skills in order to function effectively in a changing environment. Eight
distinct roles and 24 management competencies embedded in those roles are
specifically identified (Table 2). In light of the importance of the competencies
listed in the table, these are incorporated in the survey of Taipei City Government
managers.
In conclusion, critical tasks, culture, formal organizations, and people are the
four key pillars of an effective multiagency partnership. Congruent relationships and
compatible and complementary skills and abilities of people in a partnership ena
bling them to react effectively to the ever-changing and challenging environment are
a recipe for organizational effectiveness or success.
Effectiveness
From what has been discussed so far, it is appropriate to suggest that organ
izational effectiveness is a “multidimensional construct involving trade-offs among
the different dimensions based on the other elements in the organization’s strategic
configuration” (Veliyath & Srinivasant, 1995, p. 210). Apparently, organizational
effectiveness tends to be constrained and affected by the organization’s environment
and internal organizational arrangements. Therefore, optimal trade-offs between
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
44
Table 2. Managerial Roles and Competencies
Role Management Skills
Director Designing and Organizing
Visioning, Planning, and Goal setting
Delegating effectively
Producer Managing time and stress
Fostering a productive work environment
Working productively
Broker Presenting ideas
Building and maintaining a power base
Negotiating agreement and commitment
Innovator Thinking creatively
Living with change
Creating change
Mentor Developing subordinates
Communicating effectively
Understanding self and others
Facilitator Managing conflict
Building teams
Using participative decision making
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
45
Role Management Skills
Monitor Monitoring individual performance
Managing collective performance
Managing organizational performance
Coordinator Managing across functions
Designing work
Managing projects
Source: Adapted from Quinn and others (1996).
different dimensions of effectiveness count on the unique configurations of external
environmental conditions and internal strategic resource allocations and arrange
ments. In other words, strategic fit is bettered understood and assessed as the “con
sistency or complementarity among the different elements of the Gestalt rather than
the degree of achievement along a single (or even multiple) effectiveness dimen
sions” (Veliyath & Srinivasant, 1995, p. 213).
In an empirical study reviewing the development of an American committee
on environment and natural resources, Lambright (1997) points out four critical fac
tors accountable for multiagency partnership effectiveness including (a) common
interest, (b) constituency, (c) morale, and (d) leadership. Jon Pierre (1998) in dis
cussing Swedish local industrial partnerships suggests that partnership effectiveness
may also consist in creating synergy, increasing communication, and generating
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
46
legitimacy. Taken together, these two studies show many effectiveness elements,
which are incorporated as part of the Gestalt o f the partnership.
As a reflection of strategic fit, effectiveness can be assessed in terms of con
sistency or harmony among the elements of the gestalt. That is to say, an agency in
pursuing effectiveness should be making the best of its existing configuration. As
confirmed by our review so far, an effectiveness profile varies due to constraints
from the external environment and the internal organizational elements. Therefore, a
study of the multiagency partnerships of the Taipei City Government can help con
firm the existence of these strategic gestalts, as well as explore ways of assessing
their consistency or harmony.
Argumentation and Research Questions
In the literature review, academics and practitioners alike agree that a multi
agency partnership is an organizational form or policy instrument with which the
organization reacts to the demands and pressures of the external environment or
copes with issues of uncertainty or controversy. However, based on a preliminary,
exploratory survey of the Taipei City Government, it has been found that multi
agency partnerships may carry a cost, encounter obstacles, and produce unexpected,
unforeseen outcomes that are contrary to the expected benefits. These and other is
sues will be explored in depth in a case study of the Taipei City government. Argu
mentation as provided here is based on the literature review and will serve as the
foundation for research questions:
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
47
1. A multiagency partnership as an institutional arrangement should be
aligned in ways to accomplish critical tasks. Committees or any other special task
forces are meant to increase the policy capacity of agencies, instead of merely serv
ing other lesser tasks or personal agendas. In other words, partnerships should not
be allowed to become runaway organizations whose interests are in conflict with the
original goals.
2. Leadership is of paramount importance in that it maintains the best
strategic gestalt of a partnership through empowering people, transforming organ
izational culture, and adapting an appropriate governance structure in accomplishing
critical tasks in response to the needs of the environment.
3. As a source of synergy, a multiagency partnership should emphasize
collaborative advantage as its core value, instead of competitive advantage. In other
words, concern about common goals and mutual interests should take precedence
over any other concerns.
4. A multiagency partnership is by nature a power relationship whose
skilled operation serves to strengthen the strategic fit. Therefore, on the part of the
lead agencies, craftsmanship plays a critical role in rendering policy efficacy through
smart practices.
5. Factors negatively affecting the effectiveness of multiagency partner
ship are numerous, such as boundary-spanning, turf-fighting, redundancy of rules,
lacunae, policy incoherence, and many others. When trying to wrestle with the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
48
“wicked” problems of governance, researchers and practitioners alike invariably face
the dilemma of having no reliable, relevant remedies to draw upon.
With the assertions sketched above, it is possible to chart a profile of how the
Taipei City Government manages its multiagency partnerships by studying an array
of questions listed below:
1. What is the current status of the multiagency partnerships affiliated
with the Taipei City Government?
2. What are the types of multiagency partnerships currently in operation
in the Taipei City Government?
3. What are the configurations of TCG's multiagency partnerships like?
Are their people, culture, and governance structures aligned properly for accomplish
ing their critical tasks?
4. To what extent are TCG’s managers in charge of multiagency part
nerships equipped with necessary skills and abilities?
5. How effective are TCG’s multiagency partnerships? What are the
factors that affect their policy efficacy?
6. What strategies and suggestions can be offered to help the Taipei City
Government deal with the challenges and problems that prevent managerial smart
practices from becoming reality?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
49
Research Design
In seeking answers to the questions raised above, the study employs the “tri
angulation” method, a highly credited, popular approach in social science studies.
Data were collected and analyzed to present a true profile of the environments con
fronting the Taipei City Government in its program initiatives employing multi
agency partnerships. Efforts were exerted to explore its strategic responses as re
flected in organizational adjustments, staffing practices, and operational strategies.
It was the evaluation and efficacy of these efforts and programs that were our ulti
mate concern in this study.
Documentary and Secondary Data Analyses of Documents
Documentary and secondary-data analyses of documents concerning the op
erations of Taipei City Government’ s multiagency partnerships were conducted in a
fairly thorough fashion. Sources included newspaper clippings, statutes, and opera
tion rules, City Government Administrative Weekly Meeting (GAWM) minutes,
minutes of Interdepartmental Meeting for Ad hoc Issues (IMAI), research projects
reports, and related statistical data. Those sources were categorized and their content
carefully noted and analyzed in line with the research framework described above.
For example, the thorny, wicked issues continuously plaguing the various adminis
trative agencies and the factors resistant to administrative effort were identified
through a content analysis of relevant minutes and reports on special task forces.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
50
Furthermore, in tracking the roots of the wicked issues, the study found that
it was the government's fragmentation and the rapid environmental changes that had
resulted in ineffective multifunctional integration in the first place. In addition, the
continuing existence and increase in ad hoc task forces testified in some ways to the
efficacy of government programs and initiatives. Above all, the current study bene
fited to a great extent from an intensive, close scrutiny of the past sporadic attempts
to evaluate TCG's collaboration efforts among agencies, such as the Evaluation of
the Setting and Operation of Taipei City Government's ad hoc Task Forces and Hori
zontal Collaboration within Taipei City Government (Taipei City Government,
1998).
The Survey Research Method and the Nominal Group Technique
To collect realistic data at the individual as well as the collective level, the
study also adopted the survey research method and the Nominal Group Technique
prior to its in-depth analyses. These two surveys were conducted with approxi
mately 120 mid-to-high ranking Taipei City managers during an executive training
session, a Cross-Domain Management Conference, hosted by the Research, Devel
opment & Evaluation Commission, TCG.
The Questionnaire and Survey
In executing the study, a survey based on the research framework was de
signed (Appendix F) in ways that integrated the factors essential to the three major
aspects/dimensions of multiagency partnership: the external environment, internal
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
51
organization, and effectiveness. The respondents were later asked to answer in a free
and faithful way the survey questions, which were structured in ways to solicit true
information regarding TCG’s multiagency partnerships in operation. The answers
supplied for each question were on a scale of 6, ranging from “strongly agree (6)” to
“strongly disagree (2)” to “no opinion (1).” The descriptive statistics and an in-
depth cross-tab analysis of the results will be discussed in detail later in the section
titled “Research Findings.”
Quinn and Others’s (19961 Management Competency Scale
Quinn and other’s (1996) Management Competency Scale was employed in
an attempt to measure public managers’ self-perceived level o f management capa
bilities and skills deemed valuable for the current study, such as effective communi
cation, team-building, collective performance management, project management,
and multi-functional management (Huang & Huang, 1999). In a carefully structured
survey, 120 current mid-to-high level Taipei City administrators were asked to
choose the answer that best described their level of agreement with the statement on
a 7-point scale, coded: 1 = “highly disagree,” 2 = “somewhat disagree,” 3 = “dis
agree,” 4 = “neutral,” 5 = “agree,” 6 = “somewhat agree,” 7 = “highly agree.” The
quantitative data thus collected, were recorded adopting a double coding process to
ensure absolute accuracy and further statistically analyzed using the SPSS software
package. Descriptive statistics regarding the perceived importance of respective
management skills were derived and their ranking was compiled. Multiple
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
52
regression analyses were undertaken using as the two major variables the surveyed
administrators’ scores, and background (such as gender, age, position, tenure, execu
tive-nonexecutive, and education). As a result, the study is able to present in a sys
tematic and interpretive way the results derived from the 24 regression models.
The results are to be discussed and elaborated thoroughly in the next chapter (i.e.,
Research Findings) of the current research study.
The Nominal Group Technique
In addition, the Nominal Group Technique was applied in an activity involv
ing 30 TCG administrators during a half-day training session. The major purpose of
this design was to locate gaps in the operation of an effective multiagency partner
ship and hopefully identify, through candid discussion and an exchange of ideas,
some innovative and smart practices for future joint efforts.
Panel Discussion
To take advantage of the theoretical expertise and first-hand field experience,
the study undertook three sessions of panel discussions attended by both public
administration academics and practitioners associated with TCG. Their contribution
to a refined research framework and the study’s smooth execution and completion
should be fully acknowledged and appreciated.
In-depth Case Interviews
With aggregate and individual data available through the methods mentioned
so far, our understanding of the external environments, internal organizational
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
settings, and program efficacy would not be thorough or convincingly solid without
some investigation of the dynamics of a multiagency partnership. Therefore, in-
depth case interviews were incorporated in the study to help tackle the entire process
of how a multiagency partnership worked as exemplified and undertaken in the
Taipei City Government. The focus of this approach was on identification of a
wicked issue, the organizational response, response strategies, and their practical
execution. An integrated description and analysis was attempted after a series of in
terviews with key persons involved in a multiagency partnerships. For the sake of
identifying cases representative of multiagency partnerships in both nature and sig
nificance for in-depth interviews, staffers of the Research, Development & Evalua
tion Commission, TCG were invited to pick 38 cases out of a total of 152 cases for
initial, preliminary examination. Using the Delphi Technique, they made their deci
sion based on four specific criteria: vitality (it must have major policy implications);
importance to citizens' life or property; impact on government's public image; and
ability to enhance policy efficiency. With the help of these TCG staffers, the 38
policy issues thus selected (Appendix E) were further classified into the two catego
ries of either “public works” or “nonpublic works.” Then, five cases were ultimately
singled out for subsequent in-depth interviews because of their representation value
as either successful cases or near failures. Specifically, the final four cases (with the
fifth one reserved as a last resort) for which an in-depth interview was conducted :
the case of Cable Line Removal, the case of Lao-shang Primary School, the case of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
54
Trash Bag with Fee Collection, and the case of Pei-tou Spring Museum & Water
Park. The following is a summary description of the four cases as seen from the per
spective of multiagency partnerships.
The Case of Cable Line Removal
The skies of Taipei City are deformed by sprawling cable of various natures
and origins, including cables of illegal Cable-TV operators from decades ago, newly
laid cable, and cable fixtures for future communication network systems. Short of
proper disposal, the cable lines not only ruin the urban landscape but also constitute
a potential danger to public safety. City government agencies having a stake in
this case include the Information Department, Bureau of Public Works, Bureau of
Reconstruction, Taipei Rapid Transit Co., Bureau of Environmental Protection, Ur
ban Planning Commission, Taipei City Police Headquarters, Taipei Fire Department,
Rules and Regulations Commission, and Bureau of Civil Affairs.
The Case o f Lao-shanp Primary School
The Lao-shang Primary School case is complicated by the increasingly
value-laden involvement of cultural groups and the original residents whose housing
is at stake. This case represents not merely an issue of protection of an historic site
or appropriate compensation for those residents yielding their own houses for public
purposes, the case also involves many agencies searching for an ultimate solution,
such as the Bureau of Education, Urban Planning Commission, Bureau of Civil
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
55
Affairs, Bureau of cultural Affairs, Bureau of Public Works, and Department of
Land Administration.
The Case of Levying Fees Along with Raps
A new controversial policy initiative by the Taipei City Government is the
decision to levy a garbage disposal fee by incorporating it into the cost of trash bags.
A major shortcoming of the past practice, in which a fee was collected based on the
amount of running water a household consumed, was its failure to convincingly
establish the co-relationship between water consumption and garbage production.
On the contrary, the new practice is expected to provide an incentive for reducing
garbage production and encourage resource recycling while eliminating the inequali
ties of past practice. The agencies involved include the Bureau of Environmental
Protection, Bureau of Civil Affairs, Bureau of Education, Taipei City Police Head
quarters, Information Department, Bureau of Reconstruction, and Research, devel
opment and Evaluation Commission.
The Case of Pei-tou Spring Museum & . Water Park
The site of the current Pei-tou Spring Museum & Water Park had been used
for a public spring and was constructed in 1913 by the Japanese government.
Thanks to the active involvement of its local community, the Taipei City Council
was spurred to endorse the site’s being recognized and finally, it was sanctified by
the Ministry of Internal Affairs as a third-class historic site. Thereafter, the Cultural
Bureau of the city government was assigned to be the lead agency in charge of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
56
turning the spring complex into more than a place of historic value. The consensus
out of a series of discussions and deliberations by experts, academics and local resi
dents was to build a spring museum on the premise while keeping intact the original
construction. After years of dedicated efforts, at a grand opening the spring museum
was unveiled making it another multi-function attraction for Taipei metropolitan
residents. Those involved in this exemplary case of a multiagency partnership in
clude: the Bureau of Civil Affairs, Bureau of Cultural Affairs, Bureau of Public
Works, Bureau of Urban Development, Department of Land Administration,
Department of Budget, Accounting and Statistics, Bureau of Transportation, and
Research, Development and Evaluation Commission.
Expected Research Results and Contributions
In public administration or public management, partnerships as a focal point,
have been adopted to solve old problems as well as face new challenges. Through
the exploration of academic research and the accumulation of empirical experience,
theories of multiagency partnership will be established and substantiated. Based on
current knowledge, this study of the Taipei City Government's partnerships intends
to seek new methods for improving local partnerships, by exploring meaningful
problems in depth.
This study discusses a line of literature related to partnerships, and, with
cross comparisons, indicates the experiences, organizational arrangements, operating
strategies and effectiveness; it also provides practical suggestions for the Taipei City
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
57
Government's partnerships. The research results will help differentiate relevant fac
tors, pose solutions to wicked issues due to over-departmentalization and environ
mental changes, and improve the overall quality of government services.
Additionally, from the querying of officials by using the Nominal Group
Technique, Taipei City Government's top managers can build consensus regarding
the quality of collaboration. The findings from the surveys can identify gaps
between multiagency partnership effectiveness and expected results and detect what
management abilities officials should have. Furthermore, the findings can also help
discern proper management abilities for different roles and evaluate the effectiveness
of current management training programs.
This study combines theory and practice. In Taiwan, no academic research
has ever been devoted to undertaking a systematic study on multiagency partner
ships; so this study may draw attention to this issue in Taiwan and promote dialogue
between domestic and international academics. The research results of Taipei City
Government's partnerships may be further adapted to future research on interorgani-
zational relations, inter-govemmental partnerships and public-private partnerships.
Likewise, this research will definitely benefit other local governments' partnership
efforts based on its substantive contributions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
58
In sum, the expected results from this study include:
1. An analysis of environment and organizational arrangements of mul
tiagency partnerships in Taipei City Government and an evaluation of the effective
ness of these partnerships.
2. Identifying policy areas or programs in which multiagency partner
ships may work.
3. Suggesting strategies with which to overcome practical difficulties
and challenges.
4. Encouraging knowledge application and policy diffusion; the study
can provide experience based insights for other local governments and create lesson-
drawing opportunities.
5. Supplying new perspectives to current multiagency partnership
theories.
Research Limitations
As shown in Figure 2, each organization is shaped by the interactions of
four dimensions: (a) critical tasks, (b) culture, (c) formal structure, and (d) people.
Additionally, by taking the environmental variables (Figure 1) into account, this
organizational study is quite complicated. The Taipei City Government is composed
of more than 80,000 persons, staffing 34 first-level agencies and about 100 second-
level agencies. All these facts clearly suggest that the study should be conducted in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
59
a careful and exact manner, or the findings will misrepresent reality. Therefore, this
study is constrained by the following limits:
1. Although in-depth interviews, questionnaires, and participant obser
vation will be employed in this study, the researcher will not be able to assert find
ings without doubt. Theory, while helpful, remains an invisible obstacle that may
lead to explanatory biases.
2. Since the interviewees are Taipei City Government officials, their
responses are likely to be constrained by their personal experiences or perspectives,
and these officials are therefore best able to be helpful in understanding internal ar
rangements in organizations, rather than helping clarify macro or environmental
variables.
The Taipei City Government enjoys a political and economic status of unique
importance in Taiwan. Because of this particular factor, the expected research re
sults may not be appropriate or applicable when generalized for adoption by other
local governments.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
60
CHAPTER 4
RESEARCH FINDINGS AND ANALYSES
In executing of the research design, the researcher proceeded using the four
data collecting methods discussed previously: (a) in-depth interviews for four repre
sentative cases, (b) a multiagency partnership survey, (c) a Quinn's Management
Competency (1996) survey, and (d) a Nominal Group Technique session.
On June 28,2000, the two surveys were conducted with Taipei City Gov
ernment's 120 mid-to-high level officials during a training session with an exclusive
focus on multiagency partnership practices. The response rate for the multiagency
partnership survey and the management competency survey was 116/120 and 97/120
respectively. Appendix F and Appendix G list the two questionnaires; results are to
be presented later in this chapter.
On September 7,2000, 30 TCG officials out of the original pool of 120 were
in attendance at a scheduled session during which their opinions regarding five ma
jor multiagency partnership concerns were registered and compared. Through a
frank and unobtrusive process, the Nominal Group Techniques as applied here aimed
to reach consensus on three aspects of a collaborative partnership: the nature of the
issue, value judgments, and policy alternatives. Appendix details the whole proce
dure and results.
Five key persons representing TCG were engaged in the in-depth interview
process that covered four interagency collaboration cases. A rigorous selection
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
61
procedure for the interviewees was adopted. Only after several rounds of consulta
tion with the Research, Development & Evaluation Commission, did the selection
criteria get established. In fact, the ultimate five interviewees were TCG officials
who had a long-term and continuing involvement in any of the four cases; they had
critical expertise and official authority. In addition, the officials were situated in the
hub of a network in which stakeholders, including concerned citizens, interacted
most intensely. Consequently, nearly 2 months were spent conducting a total of five
interview sessions, including two for the Cable-Removal case and one for the Lao-
Shang Primary School case, the Bag-Based Garbage Disposal Charge case, and the
Pei-tou Spring Museum case, respectively.
For example, Ms. C is currently a secretary in the Bureau of Cultural Affairs
in charge of managing Pei-tou Hot Spring Museum. Her involvement in the case
dates back to 1995, right after the museum was officially sanctified as a cultural and
historic site under government protection. Coordinating land appropriation, restora
tion planning for the museum, and designing a comprehensive blueprint to establish
the museum and its environment as a valuable recreational attraction were among
her major responsibilities before the museum’s grand opening in 1999. After her
promotion to her current post, she has been assigned a supervisory role, with coordi
nation with other agencies as her primary job content. The Museum being a success
story among the numerous multiagency partnerships of Taipei City Government,
she was recommended as an ideal key person for an interview. Likewise, the other
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
62
interviewees were also selected because of their suitability for the cases under
investigation.
For more knowledge about the interviewing approach, full transcripts of the
interviews along with a brief sketch of the interviewees are included as Appendix J
through Appendix M.
Finally, a summary of the major findings from all the data collection methods
(i.e., surveys, interviews, NGT) is oiganized and presented in the following sections
based on the three dimensions sketched in the research framework: (a) the external
environment, (b) internal organizational settings, and (c) effectiveness factors.
The External Environment
Five components of the external environment are used as organizing frame
works to present findings from the four in-depth interview cases, one survey, and
one Nominal Group Technique session. The components are functional integration,
resource dependency, wicked issues, uncertainty and change, and information
technology.
Analysis of the Four Cases
Upon analyzing data collected from documents and in-depth interviews with
the five key persons of the four cases, the researcher is able to suggest how the de
mands of the external environment affect interagency collaboration.
1. Demands for functional integration. The problem of functional inte
gration tends to arise due to the over-diversification of government, a consequence
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
63
of which is the blurring of boundaries and responsibilities. For instance, in the case
of the “Cable-TV Lines Removal,” 13 first and second-level agencies have legal ju
risdiction, and, doubtless to say, partial responsibility for proper solutions. There
fore, the need to integrate the functions of the various agencies is indeed an urgent
and daunting task.
As admitted by the official in charge of the Lao-shang Primary School case,
lack of policy coherency, intra-agency coordination, and a unified processing
mechanism are invariably at fault for the prolonged solution of problems, and the
inevitable perception of ineffectiveness of government. Likewise, in the case of bag-
based trash disposal charge, difficulties are as expected in the absence of proper
functional integration among agencies having a stake in making the new program a
success.
The “Spring Museum & Water Park” cannot operate smoothly without con
certed efforts from both the Bureau of Urban Development during the early phase of
planning and from the Department of Parks & Street Lights for maintenance of park
premises. Functional diversification is justified as an organizational imperative in
response to an increasingly complex, changing world. With the variety of programs
and numbers of government agencies ever increasing, a mechanism aimed at inte
grating functional areas is increasingly deemed imperative.
2. Demands for resources. As policy makers find themselves caught in
the dilemma of addressing and solving problems of a larger magnitude with limited
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
64
resources, a concern of equal importance is how to maximize the efficient use of
public resources. In advocating the new program of levying garbage disposal fees,
for example, the allocation of resources in terms of public monies and manpower has
been a vexing controversy, not to mention the drastic changes expected of citizens.
In effect, more than half a dozen agencies have been engaged to varying degrees in
planning, scheming promotion strategies, or the eventual execution of the program.
The data out of the interviewing process support the claim that each agency can be a
vital and decisive link to the program’s efficacy. Without their contribution of hu
man or financial resources, expertise, professional and legal knowledge, or effort, no
single program can be delivered or carried out with a satisfactory result.
3. Demands for solving wicked issues. A thorny or wicked issue is de
fined as such because it involves factors that are so complex and intricately interact
ing with each other that it defies a single strategy for solution. Therefore, a new
mode of strategic and innovative thinking is in order. Take the Lao-shang Primary
School case for example; what officials care about should go beyond compensation
for the residents who would suffer from losing their housing. How to preserve a site
with cultural and historic value, and how to help settle the affected residents are a
litmus test of government officials’ wisdom and capacity. One interviewee did admit
encountering many difficulties as a result of the natural impulse to protect his own
turf and self-interest.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
In the bag-based trash disposal charge initiative, situations were not much
better. Soon after the launching of this program, a large volume of telephone calls
from concerned citizens inquiring about details nearly paralyzed the agencies in
volved. Consequently, staff workers were forced to deal with matters that seemed
more urgent, leaving other administrative affairs unheeded for a long while. In addi
tion, for those handling the actual disposal process, another source of pressure and
annoyance is the constraints existing regulations present. A good example illustra
tive of the legal constraints and hindrances the out-dated system entails is the case of
removing cable-TV lines, which is a nearly impossible mission if related Cable-TV
regulations and laws are not fixed and amended in time. In other words, wicked is
sues like the cable TV case tend to nullify any partnership efforts however genuinely
attempted.
4. Demands for dealing with uncertainty and change. The need to re
spond to new demands of the external environment is subject to many factors be
yond the policy maker's control. Even if a certain program is being carried out ac
cording to a well-designed blueprint, uncertainties likely to affect its successful de
livery still cannot be ruled out. That is to say, in public policy, change and adjust
ment are constantly policy choices for meeting new demands. The Lao-Shang
Primary School case provides vivid illustration of how demands from the environ
ment may change because various concerns interact during each stage of develop
ment: first it was merely a routine compensation case, then the issue of preserving a
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
66
historic site became the dominant concern, and finally the case was complicated and
aggravated by stake-seeking groups' active involvement. For those promoting the
trash bag-fee package, new demands literally arise on a daily basis, including media
promotion, rescheduling garbage collection routes, and training new recruits to ac
quire on-site collection techniques.
5. Demands from new information technology. Multiagency partner
ships can be facilitated by adopting suitable technology and devices that modern in
formation technology provides. In the four cases studied, the sharing of information
between the lead agency and its partners has played a significant role in determining
policy outcomes. In this regard, a major concern of many professionals is: through
what platforms and instruments can we keep professional knowledge fully shared
and used and maintain collaborative ties?
Conclusion
Based on the research framework and analyses of a great number of docu
ments along with direct findings from in-depth interviews, a chart is attempted be
low to summarize the demands from the external environment on the four cases
under scrutiny (Table 3).
Major Findings from the Survey on TCG's Multiagency Partnerships
As noted earlier in this chapter, of the 120 TCG mid-to-high level officials
participating in a multiagency partnership-training seminar, 116 of them answered
the questionnaire. A description of results below helps one to understand how public
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
67
Table 3. External Demands of the Four Cases
Cable-TV Line
Removal
Lao-Shang Primary
School
Bag-Based Trash
Disposal Charge
Spring Museum
& Water Park
Functional
Integration
V V V V
Resource
Dependency
V V V
Wicked
Issues
V V V
Change &
Uncertainty
V V V
Information
Technology
V
V V V
managers in TCG perceive the demands of the external environment and their impact
on interagency collaboration.
1. Functional integration. When asked for their perceptions about the
three essential dimensions of effective public management, 50.8% of the respondents
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
68
agreed that multiagency partners supported each other with manpower while 46.55%
of them thought they shared material resources. The percentage of respondents in
agreement with the statement dropped to merely 28.44% when financial support was
at issue. However, 65.52% of the officials surveyed did agree that multiagency part
nerships might help to integrate resources.
2. Resource dependency. A remarkable consensus was reached when
nearly 70% of the respondents picked “agree” or “strongly agree” in answering ques
tions like “multiagency partnerships improve the efficient use of the collective re
sources,” “multiagency partnerships help reduce redundancy and waste of re
sources,” and “multiagency partnerships enable agencies to complement each other
in providing a fuller range of services.” (The approval rates are 68.10%, 69.83%, and
76.32%, respectively.) Overall, 58.26% of the officials surveyed agreed that multi
agency partnerships “promote program efficiency.”
3. Wicked issues. Of the 69.83% of the respondents who agreed that
TCG’s multiagency partnerships “may help solve thorny, wicked issues,” 51.72% of
them considered interagency efforts “help develop a trusting and cooperative rela
tionship between turf-conscious agencies.”
4. Response to uncertainty and change. Environmental changes may
originate from changes in laws and regulations, social situations, and economic and
political transformations, thus demanding proper adjustments on the part of govern
ment agencies. Results show that nearly 75% of the respondents agreed that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
69
multiagency collaboration can respond well to social changes,” 65% agreed that
partnerships respond well to legal and economic changes, while about 55% felt con
fident about the ability of partnerships to deal with political changes.
5. Information technology. In answering questions about information
technology, as high as 80% of the respondents agreed that “ multiagency partner
ships in TCG enjoy sharing information and expertise,” while the question of
whether “multiagency partnerships in TCG have a need for information sharing” re
ceived an equally enthusiastic response (i.e., 83.48%). So basically, there is a close
match between the demand for and the practice of information sharing as seen from
the practitioners’ perspectives.
6. Results of the NominalGroup Technique activity. The Nominal
Group Technique was applied in a session in which 30 participants were divided into
two groups. The participants were asked to address the issue of financially reinforc
ing partners in confronting demands from the external environment. Conducted like
a brainstorming activity, the session was productively concluded with a multitude of
opinions as members had been encouraged to think in the mode of “Under what cir
cumstances, what approaches work better.”
Their opinions regarding sharing the financial costs in an interagency part
nership were varied and widely apart in some ways. Opinions include: (a) propor
tional sharing based on actual advantages gained by each partner; (b) the amount of
work and effort contributed; (c) decision by the common superior of the participating
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
70
agencies in the bureaucratic hierarchy; individually seeking financial means; (d)
loosening up legal restrictions on budget execution; equal allocation of costs among
participating agencies; (e) using a unified, singular budgeting system; (f) resorting to
reserved funds; (g) pooling all financial resources and making collective allocation
decisions; (h) decision by the executive officer in consultation with the treasurer; and
(i) many others. In effect, the opinion of “clarifying the budget items and then seek
ing legal authorization for supportive use” received one group’s unanimous approval
and ended up being the primary choice of the other group. (For details, see the vot
ing tally in Table 4).
Indeed, budget allocation was a major concern and was debated heatedly dur
ing the general discussion session. What is to be noted is the elimination from the
voting process of the option of “using a unified, singular budgetary system” because
it was deemed a pre-partnership design.
Internal Organizational Settings
Four internal arrangements variables are employed as a comprehensive
framework to organize findings from four in-depth interview cases, two surveys, and
one Nominal Group Technique session. The variables are critical tasks, culture,
formal organization, and people.
Analyses of the Four Cases
1. Critical tasks. A close scrutiny of the four cases shows that one of
the problems confronting any partnership is the blurring of boundaries and thus
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
71
Table 4. Talley o f “How Do Agencies in Partnerships Support Each Other
Financially?”
Opinions Votes
Understand budget items and seek authorized supportive use.
10
Divide tasks fairly with budget sharing among partnering
agencies.
9
Distinguish the lead agency from the assisting ones and assign
authority and responsibility.
5
Partnering agencies individually seek financial resources.
3
To be financed by the office commanding the participating
agencies.
1
Use a unitary budget line and make appropriations.
N/A
ambiguity of responsibility and accountability. Under circumstances like these, most
agencies opt to stick to what is obviously in their job descriptions unless there are
directives from their superiors or outside interventions such as the City Council's
expressed concerns. For example, staff workers think that the removal and clean-up
of cable lines belongs to the jurisdiction and responsibility of the Department of
Information since the latter is in charge of managing cable TV operators and the like.
In fact, the Information Office people have no choice but shoulder the whole
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
72
responsibility, even though no laws or regulations specify in specific language who
has exclusive jurisdiction over the cable lines per se. Further, the staff worker han
dling the case of Lau-shang Primary School pointed out that it is the people's
mentality, not the less than clear-cut division of labor nor the problem of overlapping
boundary, that renders a multiagency partnership ineffective. In his opinion, a major
ill of the various TCG agencies is their indifferent and aloof attitudes toward matters
not directly concerning them, leaving the lead agency struggling on its own.
Another staff member interviewed for his engagement in the Pei-tou Spring
Museum & Water Park case also expressed his concern about the self-interest men
tality so dominant among agencies. To clear away this mental block in the way of
dedicated partnerships, he proposed a solution: In planning and carrying out any
multiagency partnership work or project, due attention should be paid to the partici
pating agencies' prescribed tasks and given budgets.
However, what is more noteworthy is the truth that government agencies re
main capable of taking a politically correct stand as the circumstances vary. A vivid
illustration is how the agencies have shown remarkably aggressive and cooperative
attitudes toward executing the new program of levying garbage disposal fees. An
intense personal involvement of the mayor and some high-ranking executives
seems to have provided a strong motivation for agencies to accept and engage in
this interorganizational partnership in an active and cooperative fashion. Therefore,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
73
integration of various agencies and their tasks can be made more effective if admin
istrative or political pressure is imposed.
2. Culture. The study supports the premise that government efficacy is
capable of reaching a satisfactory level if the agencies in multiagency partnerships
share the same beliefs about the nature of tasks, the most appropriate organizational
arrangements, and ways to develop members' skills and competencies. A culture of
coordination and cooperation must exist before a true partnership can function effec
tively to cope with external demands. Specifically speaking, inter-agency interac
tions, coordination and communication skills, as well as consensus and trust building
skills may serve as the index for measuring Taipei City Government's multiagency
partnerships under the rubric of culture.
An overall evaluation shows that the quality of interagency interactions is
less than satisfactory. Legal procedures were followed rather faithfully, regardless of
the nature of the cases in contention. For the agencies involved, the cases of Cable-
removal, the trash bag-fee package, and the Spring Museum Park were merely cases
they could approach routinely if only they followed standard operation procedures.
However, problems tend to arise because of their ritually taking up tasks that defy
conventional wisdom and standardized thinking. In handling the Lao-shang Primary
School case, the agencies had been bent on relying on inter-agency meetings for
solving problems without bothering to study the true nature of the problem or other
possible alternatives. In the absence of creative thinking and factual knowledge
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
74
about how to preserve historic sites, particularly on the part of the lead agency, the
quality o f inter-agency interactions tends to deteriorate and create more problems.
Furthermore, pessimism is the dominant attitude held by the officials han
dling the four investigated cases when it comes to coordination and cooperation
skills. The interviewee in the cable-removal case revealed that people tend to be
passive and inactive even when objectively they have a need for coordination and
cooperation. Another executive-level official suggested that one fundamental cause
accountable for the waste of much time, manpower, and resources is that public
agencies do not possess a “can do” spirit. All they care for is doing one review after
another without substantially contributing to the solution of problems. However,
many concerned officials suggest that personal networks and social relationships can
be of help in pushing through a public program. Another interviewee frankly men
tioned that since multiagency partnerships are not legally sanctioned or prescribed
in their job descriptions, substantial incentives and innovative means appear more
important than ever for motivating people and agencies to work in tandem and in
harmony.
Lastly, all people interviewed because of their connections to the four cases
under study agreed with each other that the building of consensus and trust among
people with different values and beliefs depends primarily on coordination and
communication skills. Coordination and communication are so closely tied to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
75
each other that it is imperative to understand with more certainty what skills
administrators need and how to develop them.
3. Formal organizations. Once an organization decides to carry out
some of its critical tasks through multiagency partnerships, the decision process of
adopting a formal organizational devise may affect the outcome an interagency part
nership. Just as there are many forms of cross-organizational cooperation (e.g., joint
executive meetings, ad hoc task forces, and special committees), each multiagency
partnership is composed of different major players along with other minor partici
pants playing supportive roles. Because of the differences in power status, degree of
authority (or authorization), and trust relationships with the highest power echelons,
different forms of multiagency partnership tend to achieve different results. That is
also why the study set out to investigate and understand from different perspectives
how multiagency partnerships are operated in practice in Taipei City Government.
In the opinion of one first-line official, joint executive meetings, task forces,
and special committees do not differ in their nature from each other in that all are
formal, policy-level organizational devices. When actually working to tackle the
numerous tasks of any particular controversial work, these officials rely more on
phone calls, memos, coordination meetings, and spot checks. In the bag-based trash
disposal charge program, some people reasoned that gathering people with different
responsibilities for the sake of coordination works well because it enables them to
acquire inspiration and ideas in the process of brain-storming while improved
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
76
personal relationships help with the ease of communication over the telephone in
solving minor details.
Dissenting voices abound, nevertheless. In the case of resettling the residents
in the neighborhood of Lao-shang Primary School, it is suggested that both task
forces and coordination sessions have foiled to achieve a workable solution because
either (a) they were organized so late as to miss the appropriate timing (e.g., the con
cern of historic-site preservation should have been raised 10 years earlier), or (b) the
mechanisms through which the agencies interacted with each other as partners in
solving a wicked issue tended to compromise efficiency as every major decision and
action had to go through the various chains of command.
To improve the coordinating process and the ultimate outcome, an appropri
ate response, according to one interviewee, is put in place: (a) a singular, unified
review system complete with matching measures that specify clear standards for re
wards and sanctions; (b) clear guidelines that clarify coordination issues and set
deadlines for work contributions during each stage of task execution.
Another participant in the case of Pei-tou Spring Museum & Water Park sug
gested that certain forms of multiagency partnership may work more effectively, de
pending on the unique characteristics of the particular issue at hand. For instance,
under certain circumstances, there may be a strong need to form a task force to be
chaired and pushed by an authoritative person. Or, in some cases, communication
and coordination between people at the basic operating level will be sufficient for
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
77
the work to be done. In contrast, site-visits and on-site coordination sessions are of
ten required in situations like the spring-turned-museum case.
4. People. Since human resources play a critical role in deciding the
outcome of any human endeavor, especially a multiagency partnership, questions
like “who are the participants,” “what is their attitude toward the joint effort,” and
“what is their power base” are worthy of discussion. As the results show, all the key
persons in the four cases know exactly which agencies have a stake in each partner
ship. In the meantime, however, they hold in common the view that all the partici
pating agencies and their personnel are too turf-conscious to treat any partnership as
a priority unless there is instruction and authorization from higher authority.
The person in the Spring Museum case proposed a positive way to make
partnerships work better. In his view, it is necessary to understand before launching
a partnership what the critical tasks are that participating agencies are to be engaged
in and the financial resources budgeted for the work to be done. In this way, all par
ticipating agencies will have a better motivation for the partnership. As for the ulti
mate decision power, all the interviewees agreed that it is up to the higher authority
who has the will and power to determine the nature and direction of a multiagency
partnership, with the participating agencies at the lower levels making suggestions
and doing the actual execution work.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
78
Findings from the Survey on TCG's Multiagency Partnerships
Major findings from the survey are presented and discussed based on the four
major parts of an organization: critical tasks, organizational culture, formal struc
tures and people.
1. Critical tasks. Of the 80.17%, 116 mid-to-high ranking TCG officials
surveyed in the study agreed with the statement, “There exists the phenomenon of
overlapping responsibility among the participating TCG agencies in multiagency
partnership.” The same subjects (74.14%) were in agreement with the statement
“there exists the phenomenon of an unclear, ambiguous specification of tasks and
responsibilities in TCG's multiagency partnership.” In their personal evaluation of
the interagency partnerships in terms of tasks, means, and skills, 66.38% of the sub
jects expressed agreement with the statement that “TCG's multiagency partnerships
have set clear objectives for the tasks to be accomplished,” while merely 50.44% of
them agreed that the participating agencies “possess precisely the needed skills or
correct means for task accomplishment.”
Another interesting finding is that for those people whose work is closely re
lated to public works and engineering, multiagency partnerships are not taken seri
ously as a priority. On the other hand, the other nonpublic works officials neither
agree nor object to multiagency partnerships being a policy priority.
2. Culture. In their perception of TCG’s multiagency partnerships as an
index of organizational culture, a meager 31.9% of the officials surveyed considered
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
79
that “participating agencies hold an aggressive attitude toward inter-agency coordi
nation and collaboration.” Similarly only 31.89% claimed that “there is a trust rela
tionship member agencies hold toward each other.” Overall, the culture of
collaboration for multiagency partnerships as observed and suggested by this study
is obviously less than satisfactory.
3. Formal organizations. When asked about the effectiveness of several
forms of multiagency partnership, 74.78%, 65.79%, and 58.56% of the surveyed of
ficials specified task forces, joint meetings, and special committees respectively as
feasible organizational devices. When asked to further rank the three popular struc
tures for interorganizational collaboration, they gave task forces, special committees
and joint meetings a preference rate o f48.00%, 33.60%, and 18.40% respectively.
Based on the results reported above, this study is able to suggest with some
certainty that the ad hoc task force is currently considered the most effective means
of interagency collaboration.
However, actual partnership operations do not look as rosy. Despite the fact
that 75% of the surveyed officials were able to acknowledge their partners in cross-
organizational efforts, only 43.% of them considered their interactions “good and
positive” in contrast to a lower percentage of them (e.g., 27.59%) claiming that
“TCG’s member agencies in multiagency partnership enjoy the power to make
decisions.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
80
4. People. Only 42.24% of the subjects surveyed agreed with the state
ment that “TCG workers are fully capable of engaging in multiagency partnerships”
in contrast to the finding that 25.04% of them agreed that the partners in TCG's
cross-organizational collaboration would “consider the partnership a top priority.”
Meanwhile, 51,73% of the subjects accepted the statement that “members of a multi
agency partnership are capable of strengthening their willingness and capacity for
more learning.”
Cross Tabs Analyses
By means of “cross tabs,” a procedure that cross-examines the individual
background of the surveyed people and their answers to each survey question, it was
determined that the findings did not show widely divergent differences. Still, given
that fact some results appear more remarkable than others, a brief summary is pre
sented as follows:
1. Gender as a factor of analysis. Ninety percent of the male interview
ees agreed that multiagency partnerships could help cultivate the spirit of innovation.
This is in contrast to the opposing attitude held by the majority of female interview
ees for the respondents’ background (Appendix H). Most male subjects and 38% of
the female subjects did not agree nor disagree with the statement that “multiagency
collaboration partners trust each other,” while another 38% of the female subjects
objected to the same statement. Most male subjects did not consider it true that
“multiagency collaboration partners treat a partnerships as a top priority,” in
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
81
contrast, most female subjects did not side with the two extreme positions of agree
and disagree. Most male subjects expressed knowledge about concrete strategies
with which to overcome difficulties confronting multiagency partnership, while most
of their female counterparts appeared to be less confident.
2. Age as a factor of analysis. Subjects aged between 21 and 30 dis
agreed that “members of a multiagency partnership hold an aggressive attitude to
ward this kind of collaboration culture," while most subjects in the age bracket of
31 -50 expressed neither agreement nor objection to the same statement. Whereas,
those aged over 51 mostly agreed with the statement.
3. Position as a factor of analysis. In evaluating the general effective
ness of TCG's current multiagency partnerships, most subjects expressed approval
and a positive attitude, except for most of the officials with a ranking of 10 (Grade
14 being the highest for career officials) in the hierarchical system. Regardless of
grade and rank differences, most subjects agreed that “multiagency partnerships
benefit participating members," but 40% of the subjects in Grade 7 did not agree.
40% of the officials in Grade 7, 30% in GradelO and in Grade 1 1 disagreed that
“most participants in multiagency partnership hold an aggressive attitude toward
establishing a culture of cross-organizational collaboration," while the rest of the
subjects took a middle of the road position. Furthermore, 34% of the subjects in
both Grade 8 and Grade 1 1 suspected that “members of a multiagency partnership
enjoy a trust relationship with each other,” which is a contrast to the majority of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
82
those surveyed who did not take a clear position. Forty percent of the Grade 7 sub
jects disagreed that "multiagency participants have sufficient skills, and 40% of the
Grade 9 subjects neither agreed nor disagreed with the same statement, in contrast to
the general attitude of approval by the remaining subjects. Most subjects in the
Grade 10 and Grade 1 1 brackets did not agree that multiagency participants received
great appreciation for their work performance, while the rest of the subjects did not
take either a positive or negative attitude. Most subjects in Grades 6, 7, and 11, did
not agree that "multiagency participants can soon find solutions when encountering
difficulties,” but the remaining subjects in the other grade level neither agreed nor
disagreed with the statement. Finally, most subjects in Grades 7,10, and 1 1 were
aware of what strategies to take when encountering difficulties in cross-
organizational partnerships; most of the subjects in Grades 8 and 9 neither agreed
nor disagreed that they knew what the strategies were. In contrast, the Grade 6 sub
jects had no idea at all.
4. Executive-nonexecutive as a factor of analysis. Most of the executive
level subjects agreed that “the skills and means for TCG’s multiagency partnerships
are clear and certain, and the participants can improve their willingness and ability.”
Yet, most nonexecutive subjects neither agreed nor disagreed with this statement.
As for the statement that “multiagency participants hold an aggressive attitude to
ward the culture of coordination and collaboration,” most executives and one-third
of the nonexecutives neither agreed nor disagreed, in contrast to another one-third of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
83
the nonexecutives responding to the same statement in a positive fashion. While
most nonexecutives disagreed about multiagency partnerships being treated as a top
priority, most executives neither objected to nor approved of this idea.
5. Tenure as a factor of analysis. Most of the subjects with less than 10
years of seniority in public service, disagreed that “participants in multiagency part
nerships hold an aggressive attitude toward the culture of coordination and collabo
ration, and that the participants had sufficient skills.” Most of the subjects whose
seniority was over 10 years neither agreed nor disagreed with the same statements.
Most of the subjects having a service record of between 6 and 10 years or between
16 and 20 years disagreed that “multiagency partnership participants treat the part
nership as a top priority, with the remaining subjects holding a middle-of-the-road
attitude. Thirty-one percent of those with seniority between 6 to 10 years disagreed
that partnership “participants often receive great appreciation and praise, while an
other 31% of them tended to accept this statement as true, leaving the remaining
ones holding an attitude in between.
6. Education as a factor of analysis. Most of the subjects with a hache-
lors or masters degree disagreed about the statement that “participants in multi
agency partnership enjoy some decision power.” Most of the subjects with a high
school diploma or a doctoral degree neither agreed nor disagreed with the statement.
However, most of the subjects (with a high school, college or doctoral education)
neither agreed with nor objected to the statement that “multiagency participants can
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
84
seek out solutions or have concrete strategies when encountering difficulties,”
whereas a majority of those with a masters degree disagreed with the statement.
Findings from Quinn’s Management Competency Survey (19 9 6 ~ >
Another questionnaire adapting Quinn's “competing values framework” was
developed and administered to TCG's mid-to-high ranking administrators to inquire
about their level of competency on twenty-four specific skills. From the data thus
collected and analyzed, two major findings were sorted out: first, the officials' per
ception of their own management competency; and second, the factors likely to af
fect perceptions of the officials' management competency.
1. The officials' self-perception of their own management competency.
Table 3 displays the average value and standard deviation of the scores gained by the
surveyed officials on the 24 management skills. A quick glance at the column “av
erage” on this Table 5 shows that 19 items each received a score of over 5 (i.e.,
agree), indicating that most surveyed officials considered themselves possessing the
skills and competencies itemized in the questionnaire. The remaining five items
each received an average score lower than 5; those items were ability to manage con
flicts, ability to design work, cross-functional ability, ability to manage time and
stress, and ability to present ideas.
“Communicating effectively” was the item scoring the highest (average =
5.72), while the other high-scoring items included skills and abilities like “working
productively,” “understanding self and others,” “delegating effectively,” and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
85
Table 5. Descriptive Statistics on Competencies
Management Skill Survey Item No. Mean St. Dev.
Delegating Effectively 17,41,65,72,89 5.41 0.93
Visioning, Planning, Goal Setting
9, 33, 80, 105 5.29 0.98
Designing and Organizing 11,35, 59,86,99 5.25 0.88
Managing Time and Stress 18, 71,96,112 4.81 1.09
Fostering a Productive Work
Environment 10, 34, 58, 73, 106 5.06 0.97
Working Productively 2,26,42, 55,98,101 5.59 1.02
Presenting Ideas 24,48,90, 110 4.76 1.07
Negotiating Agreement &
Commitment 16,40, 81 5.37 0.88
Building and maintaining a Power
Base 8, 28, 32, 49, 104 5.33 2.7
Thinking Creatively 15,39,82, 109, 111 5.19 1.08
Creating Change 23,31,47,66,91 5.01 0.97
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
86
Table 5. (continued)
Management Skill Survey Item No. Mean St. Dev.
Living with Change 7, 50, 74, 03, 113 5.00 0.98
Developing Subordinates 21,45, 68, 87, 93 5.29 0.88
Communicating Effectively 13, 37,61,84 5.72 3.06
Understanding Self and Others 5, 29, 52, 76, 108 5.43 0.96
Managing Conflict 22,46,64,47,92, 116 4.% 0.99
Using Participative Decision
Making 14, 38, 62, 83, 102 5.15 0.98
Building Teams 6,25, 30,51, 75 5.02 1.05
Monitoring Personal Performance 1, 53, 77, 79, 88, 100 5.16 1.09
Managing Collective Performance 12,44, 54, 60, 85, 107 5.19 0.92
Managing Organizational
Performance 4, 20, 69,94 5.23 0.83
Managing Projects 3,27,57, 78, 115 5.11 0.95
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
87
Table 5. (continued)
Management Skill Survey Item No. Mean SL Dev.
Designing Work 36,43, 56,63,97,114 4.92 0.99
Managing Across Functions 19, 70, 95,117 4.92 0.99
Mean 5.17 1.135
“visioning, planning, and goal setting.” With the “ability to present ideas,” receiving
the lowest score, the other relatively low-scoring management competencies
included stress management, cross-functional management, work design, and con
flict management.
2. Factors affecting the officials’ perceptions of their own management
competencies. In addition to the findings discussed above about TCG public man
agers' own evaluation of management skills, the study also conducted a regression
analysis measuring the relationships between the 24 core skills and the characteris
tics of the surveyed managers. An examination of the statistical data (Table 6)
shows that:
(a) That gender as an independent variable, is the only item hav
ing statistical significance with the surveyed respondents’ self-perceived
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Table 6. Regression Analysis
88
Management Skill GEN POSLV EXECU TENU EDU
ADJ.
R2
Delegating Effectively .342 .088 .182 -.001 -.188 .001
Visioning, Planning, Goal Setting .215 207* .263 .001 .052 .039
Designing and Organizing .218 .147* 210 -.002 -.143 .008
Managing Time and Stress .425 .128 .277 .017 -.102 .031
Fostering a Productive Work
Environment .224 .141 .098 -.007 -.074 .002
Working Productively .379 .180* .217 -.008 .012 .047
Presenting Ideas -.187 .156 .397 -.017 .097 .012
Negotiating Agreement &
Commitment .069 .151* .174 -.002 -.095 .005
Building and Maintaining a Power
Base -.005 .304 1.249* .028 -.049 .022
Thinking Creatively .273 .156* .154 -.005 .035 .027
Creating Change .214 .118* .212 .009 -.026 .033
Living with Change -.010 .120 .097 -.007 -.043 .014
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
89
Table 6. (continued)
Management Skill GEN POSLV EXECU
TENU EDU
ADJ.
R2
Communicating Effectively 1.481* 0.038 -.280 -.047 .016 .032
Understanding Self and Others 0.379 0.114 .293 .004 -.004 .031
Managing Conflict -.046 0.129 .121 -.003 -.150 .017
Using Participative Decision
Making .207 .133 221 .002 -.032 .010
Building Teams .027 .145 .009 -.011 -.117 .020
Monitoring Personal Performance .350 .087 .232 .005 .106 .000
Managing Collective Performance .088 .137 .144 .012 -.038 .013
Managing Organizational
Performance .222 .182** .067 -.014 -.167 .036
Managing Projects .182 .123 .117 .000 -.097 .013
Designing Work .122 .133 .163 .011 -.028 .002
Managing Across Functions -.146 .163 .211 .007 -.105 .020
* = j> < .05
** = !>< .01
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
90
skills o f“ communicating effectively” among the 24 core management skills
in Quinn and others' (1996) scheme. That is to say, female respondents on
average showed a more positive evaluation of their own communication
skills.
(b) Item “position” is positively correlated to the skill variables of
“vision, planning, and goal setting,” “designing and organizing,” “working
productively,” “negotiating agreement and commitment,” “thinking crea
tively,” “creating change” and “managing organizational performance.” In
other words, the higher a respondent’s position, the more he or she tends to
think highly of his/her skills in the items mentioned here.
(c) Of the 24 items of management skills measured, “execu
tive-nonexecutive” as an indepndent variable has a significant relationship
with nothing else other than the skills of “building and maintaining a power
base,” indicating that executive thinks more highly of their ability to manage
a power base than do their colleagues with nonexecutive.
(d) The respondents’ tenure and education level are not signifi
cantly correlated to the 24 core skills measured.
Summary Findings from the Nominal Group Technique
The Nominal Group Technique (NGT) as another data collection method in
the current study was administered to 30 of Taipei City Government's mid-to-high
ranking officials during a study session. Three major topics were among the agenda
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
91
of this candid, enthusiastic session: (a) What are the optimal organizational ar
rangements for multiagency partnerships, (e.g., ad hoc task forces, joint meetings,
special committees, social networks, or others)? (b) How to facilitate cross-
organizational communication and information exchange among agencies in a
multiagency partnership? (c) Under the circumstances that regulations and laws are
ambiguous and boundaries of responsibility blurry, what are the best ways to manage
multiagency partnerships?
1. The optimal organizational arrangements for multiagency partner
ships. The six small groups each demonstrated high group consensus regarding the
best organizational arrangements for more effective cross-agency partnerships. Two
groups unanimously nominated “social networks,” and “joint meetings” as the most
effective means, while another three suggested “ad hoc task forces,” and “special
committees” as the best arrangements. Surprisingly, no other organizational devises
other than those suggested in advance were brought forth for discussion.
During the joint discussion session later, some participants seemed surprised
to learn of other groups voicing different opinions, but they did not hesitate in pro
viding elaboration in support of their own opinions. The final tally of the votes
proved that the participants held strong beliefs for “ad hoc task forces” as the first
option. This option received the highest vote (Table 7).
Some opinions and elaborations worthy of attention are discussed here. First,
for those against “social networks” as an effective means, this approach tends to
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
92
Table 7. Tally of Voting on “Most Effective Means of Multiagency Partnerships”
Opinion Vote
Task Forces 12
Social Networks
6
Joint Meetings 6
Ad hoc Committees 3
encourage behind— the scenes deals and favors— exchange practices. On the contrary,
those in favor of this method claim that making use of social networks facilitates to
a great extent, the successful execution and fulfillment of tasks and goals and that
cultivation of these social ties takes time and effort. Second, many participants
considered “ joint meetings” an effective means because it is usually top official who
are more likely than not to show up at the meeting and make binding decisions.
Third, it was rightly pointed out that “an ad hoc task force” has a better chance of
accomplishing its missions because of its temporary yet substantial nature.
2. How to make agencies in a multiagency partnership communicate and
share information with each other? Responding to the issue o f inter-organizational
communication and information exchange, the participants in brainstorming pro
posed a multitude o f options during the smalf-group discussion session, ranging
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
93
from organizing associations, boot-camps, regular coffee hours, in-house
WWW hyper connections, regular evaluations, cultivating social networks, regular
get-togethers, information sharing, personnel exchanges, reaffirming partnerships,
business briefings and exchange sessions, high-level coordination, management on
the run, regular or irregular meetings, regular joint meetings, sharing of agency
computer network resources, coordinating efforts of counterparts and partners, and
specifically requiring advance notice and notification of any possible actions.
During the foil session, much discussion was devoted to the six groups' pre
ferred options, leading to acceptance of “social networks” as the highest vote-
winning option (Table 8 for the final tally). What is unusual about the result is the
truth that this option was not a priority of any group.
3. How to advance multiagency partnerships when regulations are am
biguous and responsibilities blurry? The majority of the participants responded to
this question with a rather unified answer, meetings, plus the opinion that the Rules
and Regulations Commission should take over any controversy and clarify its legal
nature and implications. However, opinions as to who should organize such meet
ings and what should be their proper forms varied widely. For the question of
“who,” their suggestions included superiors, high ranking executives, people with a
strong power base, the lead agency, and the organizing agency, while the forms con
sidered appropriate included coordination meetings, joint task forces, special task
forces, and so forth. After an integration of the mostTtreferred options, the six small
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
94
Table 8 Voting Tally on “Most Effective Ways of Cross-agency Communication
and Information Sharing”
Opinions Votes
Social networks
10
Regular or irregular get-togethers 9
Internal memos specifying advance notice requirement 4
Reaffirming partnerships 2
Social; get-togethers initiated by lead agencies 2
groups held a plenary discussion session and voted to as shown in Table 9. It is clear
that the means they considered most effective when confronting the ambiguity of
regulations and uncertainty of turf and responsibility were “people with power or
ganize meetings,” “face-to-face consultation and coordination” and “superior coor
dinates and makes decisions.”
Effectiveness Factors
1. Analysis of the four cases. Effectiveness in public policy discourse
refers to the output of a public policy, the evaluation of which is based on a measure
of some index factors. Most academics in their discussion of multiagency partner
ship strategies and values assume that this particular form of organization is capable
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
95
Table 9. Voting Tally of Voting on “How to Advance Multiagency Partnerships
When Regulations are Ambiguous and Responsibilities Blurry”
Opinions Votes
People with power organize meetings 8
Face-to-face consultation and coordination 7
Superior coordinates and makes decisions 7
Lead agency organizes coordination meetings 4
of achieving effectiveness to a certain degree, without excluding the possibility
of a negative effect. So for the four cases examined in the current study, several fac-
tors were established to serve as the indices in judging their policy effectiveness:
motivation or incentive for advancing the case, degree of support for multiagency
partnerships, appreciation for participants in multiagency partnerships, and ways to
solve related problems.
A comparative study of the four cases shows them to be representative of
four typical kinds of motivations or incentives driving agencies to advocate a certain
policy or public program, including:
First, the motivation may be from administrative and political pressures ex
erted by executives, council members, or interested groups. For instance, in the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
96
trash bag-fee initiative, the mayor and members of the City Council expressed their
concern in a direct, apparent way. In the cable line removal case, it was the ex
pressed enthusiasm of the agency executive that impelled subordinates to take over a
job not within their scope of responsibilities. Different from the two cases was the
smooth development and completion of the Spring Museum & Water Park, which
was due largely to the activism and concerted efforts of local delegates and the
community.
Secondly, pressures may stem from legal regulations and budgetary con
straints. In approaching the case of Lau-shang Primary School, officials in charge
were faced with a fast-approaching deadline for appropriation of allotted public
monies and a new legal reality (the enactment of cultural resources preservation law)
and its binding power. Officials had been caught between different interests and thus
pressures; and they had, therefore, a strong motivation to act both cautiously and
with dedication.
Third, “honor” may be another kind of motivation strong enough to encour
age government workers to exert as much effort as possible. The section chief in
charge of the new trash disposal program proudly claimed that section members
were engaged in a revolution whose significance was of epic proportion, and they
were willing to devote all efforts even though the workload was overwhelmingly
heavy and the need for overwork demanding.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
97
Fourth, the presence or lack of support from agency executives and the
mayor is also a critical factor accounting for a multiagency partnership’s success or
failure. There had been much fanfare surrounding the cable line removal case and
the trash bags-fee program partly because the latter was one of the mayor’s cam
paign promises while the former had an executive's personal attention as a pet pro
gram. Generally speaking, a multiagency partnership program or policy is more
likely to receive budgetary and political support and other necessary resources if it
affects a powerful interest group, a great portion of constituents, policy efficacy, or
salient campaign promises.
In addition, all the officials in the four cases agreed that it was more difficult
to receive acknowledgements and appreciation from superiors; one major reason is
that evaluation of their job performance is not easy.
Finally, all the interviewees seemed confident about overcoming difficulties
on the job. One official suggested that it was the design of the current administrative
system that is at fault. In his opinion, citizens were rightfully complaining about
their multiagency partnerships’ ineffectiveness, particularly in horizontal communi
cation, when in fact it was the current system that rendered this kind of cross-agency
communication difficult in the first place. Therefore, he reasoned that multiagency
partnerships would become more effective if administrative boundaries and respon
sibilities could be reexamined closely and clarified critically.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
98
Findings from the Survey on TCG’s Multiagency Partnerships
The survey results provide insights into our understanding of how effective
Taipei City Government’s multiagency partnerships are. The effectiveness issue can
be examined from two aspects: (a) What are the incentives behind TCG’s multi
agency partnerhips? (b) How strong is the support for multiagency partnerships from
people and institutions having a stake in the outcome? How well are their efforts
appreciated and recognized? And how well are the agencies aware of the proper
responses called for?
Results show that most of the respondents (71.55% agreed that the driving
force for multiagency partnerships comes largely from agency executives, while
only 56.04% of them sided with the statement that the incentive “comes from identi
fication with the government.” On the contrary, a high percentage (68.1%) of the
respondents disagreed with the statement that “support for multiagency partnerships
comes from substantial rewards,” indicating that perhaps the government needs to
improve incentives.
In their responses to questions about crucial support, only 32.62% of the re
spondents agreed that “TCG multiagency partnerships have the City Council’s sup
port." However, they accepted the statements that “multiagency partnerships have
the executives' support” and that “multiagency partnerships have the support of re
lated, concerned groups" by showing an approval rate of 72 and 60, respectively.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
99
However, only 25.44% of the surveyed officials agreed that “multiagency
partnerships often encounter difficulties.” Added to ther pessimism was the low de
gree of confidence shown as merely 35.40% of them responded that they “know
concrete strategies to cope with difficulties in multiagency partnerships.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
100
CHAPTER 5
A SUMMARY OF FINDINGS AS THEY RELATE
TO THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Chapter 4 has presented the results of an in-depth investigation into some
representative multiagency partnerships in Taipei City Government. In this chapter,
those findings are summarized and integrated to provide answers to the six research
questions posed in chapter 3. Hopefully, this analysis will shed some light on the
true state of TCG multiagency partnerships and thus suggest strategies for solving
the problems they constantly face.
The Current Status of the Multiagency Partnerships in TCG
Question 1: What is the Current Status of the Multiagency
Partnerships in Taipei City Government?
Synthesizing the available data (mostly the results of surveys and in-depth in
terviews), the current study seeks to provide succinct answers as follows:
First, the major incentive or driving force for TCG multiagency partnerships
is the agency executive's orders. As noted previously, the investigation results show
71.35% of the surveyed officials are in agreement with the suggestion that an agency
executive's order tends to be the major incentive for cross-agency collaboration.
Likewise, the four interviewed officials also admitted experiencing administrative
or political pressure from superiors or executives. As for other kinds of work in
centives, sense of honor and group identification are among the major factors
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
101
motivating people to do their best; this was affirmed by the officials handling the
focal cases first-hand, despite a moderate partnership approval rate o f56.04.
Second, participants in multiagency partnerships do not adequately receive
citations or rewards for their performance. It is noteworthy that 68.1 % of the ques
tionnaire respondents think that their efforts in pushing through cross-agency pro
grams do not necessarily win them recognition and appreciation. This is a conclu
sion highly similar to what the four interviewees have suggested. Some officials are
even sarcastic in suggesting that they should feel lucky enough for being spared pun
ishment. Therefore, these are genuine voices that the executives need to listen to
attentively.
Third, there is room for improving interactions among interagency collabora
tion partners. Even if a majority (75%) of the respondents may have prior knowl
edge about whom they are collaborating with, only 43.96% consider their interac
tions good enough. Results from the interviews indicate that government agencies
tend to display a passive and inactive attitude toward tasks unless there is direct in
tervention or instruction from superiors.
Fourth, multiagency partnership members lack decision power. The survey
results and the interviewees all point out the fact that members of a TCG multi
agency collaboration enjoy, at best, some power to suggest policy alternatives. With
the decision power vested exclusively in executives, it will be extremely difficult to
effectively promote any public program, not to mention a cross-agency initiative.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
102
Finally, integrative perspectives on the primary findings are as follows:
The Questionnaire and Survey. As mentioned before, the questionnaire de
signed and administered to the 116 respondents in the study was intended to elicit
authentic data (i.e., Taipei City Government mid-to-high ranking officials' percep
tions about multiagency partnerships) with which to assess the current state of their
interorganizational collaboration. Through a cross-tabulation procedure that used
gender, age, nature of work, position, executive-nonexecutive, education, and the
like as contingency factors, some patterns did appear:
1. More males than females agree that multiagency partnerships can
cultivate the spirit of innovation, and males also are more aware of possible coping
strategies when encountering difficulties.
2. Less senior respondents (especially those aged 21-30) tend to hold a
less active or aggressive attitude toward participation in multiagency partnerships.
Officials who have an orientation in public construction work are more likely to dis
regard multiagency collaboration as a top priority.
3. Officials who have an orientation in public construction work are
more likely to disregard multiagency collaboration as a top priority.
4. Regardless of position differences, all respondents, except for Grade
10 officials, consider that, on the whole, TCG multiagency partnerships are working
well.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
103
5. Most executives agree their multiagency partnerships possess needed
skills and clear technologies and that their collaborative participants are able to build
the will and capability for conducting them.
6. Most of the subjects with a college education (72 persons) or a
master’s degree (39 persons) overwhelmingly negate the opinion that multiagency
partnership participants have decision power.
In-depth interviews. Overall, the interviewed officials felt dissatisfied about
how their cross-sector collaborations had been conducted. The inhibiting factors
they identified included the lack of proper incentives and matching measures, legal
constraints, outdated administrative regulations, and insufficient delegation of au
thority. Their opinions, obviously, may serve as useful reminders for executives who
consider it an imperative to pursue effective interagency collaboration.
The Types o f Multiagency Parnerships Currently
Operated in TCG
Question 2: What are the Types of Multiagency Partnerships
Currently in Operation in the Taipei City Government?
As clearly shown in the survey results, the organizational arrangements
deemed to be most effective for facilitating multiagency partnerships were ad hoc
task forces (74.78%), joint executive meetings (65.79%), and special committees
(58.56%). When asked to rank further the three top choices based on their prefer
ences, they came up with a priority order of ad hoc task forces (74.78%), special
committees (33.60) and joint executive meetings (18.40%). Whatever the methods
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
104
of inquiry, ad hoc task forces remain, in the interviewed officials’ opinions, the most
effective form of multiagency partnership.
Contrary to the finding of a clear consensus above, the results derived from
the four in-depth interviews indicate that the implementing officials dismissed the
three forms of multiagency collaboration as too formal and policy-like to be practical
and flexible. The interviewees suggested that, at the implementation level, other
methods would be more effective, such as a phone contact, a memo notice, a site
visit, or a spot-check. The interviewees suggest that the nature of a particular case
requires a particular form of interagency collaboration.
On the other hand, findings from the Nominal Group Technique seem able to
help shed some light on the issue of individual preference as opposed to practical
instruments that are likely to be adopted. The voting record of the 30 mid-to-high
ranking managers clearly shows their preference for organizational arrangements in
approaching multiagency partnerships: ad hoc task forces (12), human/social net
works (6), joint executive meetings (6), and special committees (3). The voting
record indicates that three of them did not make decision Not surprisingly, ad hoc
task forces remain the preferable organization form, while social networking is
popularly received and practiced as a useful and perhaps indispensable tool
Integrating the results of the three research methods, the study is able to sup
port a suggestion that ad hoc task forces appear to be the most popular and preferred
form of multiagency collaboration of Taipei City Government officials. These
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
105
officials also hold a positive attitude toward the practical functions of interpersonal
networks in cross-agency efforts. In addition, this kind of collaboration corresponds
to an “Operational Partnership” according to the classification scheme proposed by
Kemagham (1993:58), and relates closely to Harding's Shotgun Partnership
(1998:71-92) since the force of partnership comes from superiors or legal mandates.
The Configuration of TCG’s Multiagency Partnerships
Question 3: What Are the Configurations of TCG’s Multiagency
Partnerships Like? Are Its People. Culture, and Governance
Structure Aligned Properly for Accomplishing
Its Critical Tasks?
To answer the question above, the study earlier specified four internal aspects
as a research focus; namely, people, culture, formal governance structure, and criti
cal tasks. After summarizing the major findings from the in-depth interviews, ques
tionnaire surveys, and the NGT session, the study would suggest in an integrative
manner the following concluding remarks:
1. Generally speaking, TCG’s multiagency partnership participants do
not consider this kind of collaboration a top priority. One particular finding o f the
questionnaire (i.e., only 25.04% of the surveyed officials agreed that multiagency
partnerships were regarded as a priority) coupled with the views of all the officials
undertaking the in-depth interviews signify a rather consensual conclusion that
cross-agency collaboration is not taken very seriously as a priority. Collaboration
tends to be a concern of lesser importance, subject to quite a few limitations such as
available manpower and resources. Some interviewees do agree that an executive’s
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
106
direct instruction and active involvement may draw more attention and effort into
a multiagency partnership program and thus its delivery. Still, some respondents
do not sound as optimistic, suggesting, instead, that it may be more feasible and
practical to incorporate a multiagency partnership into the regular tasks of the agen
cies involved throughout the planning and execution stages.
2. A culture of partnership needs to be cultivated. The prospect for
effective multiagency partnerships in Taipei City Government seems rather bleak,
judging from the low showing of 31.9% and 31.89% of the surveyed officials that
agreed either “multiagency partnership members show an aggressive attitude” or
"members have mutual trust,” respectively. This less-than-positive picture of TCG’s
cross-agency collaboration is further confirmed in the in-depth interviews. The in
terviewed officials viewed their actual collaboration with other agencies as a culture
of avoidance instead of partnership, for the simple truth, is that each agency is too
conscious of its own turf and interests to establish a true collaborative and trusting
relationship with others. In other words, it is indeed imperative to cultivate and
strengthen a culture of partnership among the agencies.
There is a need to reexamine and fine-tune organizational structures to facili
tate multiagency partnerships. As is concluded from the survey results, a majority of
the officials upheld the validity and effectiveness of current organizational arrange
ments such as ad hoc task forces and joint meetings. Nevertheless, the study, by
exploring more deeply the inner, truthful thinking of officials via in-depth interviews
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
107
and the NGT sessions, indicates that human and informal networks may serve as bet
ter catalysts for inter-organizational collaboration. Therefore, given the difficulty
in restructuring current organizational arrangements, it is of equal importance to
motivate civil servants to devote their best efforts to multiagency collaborations in a
creative and proper manner.
4. A clear designation of responsibilities and duties contributes to the
accomplishment of critical tasks. In additional to putting effort into work ethics,
cultivation of partnerships, and organizational adjustments, something else is ur
gently required: a clearer division of labor and tasks will be of much help. As has
been noted previously, one survey conclusion disclosed that over-lapping tasks
(80.17%) and an unclear job description (74.14%) were identified as factors to be
blamed for ineffective multiagency partnerships. In the interviewing process, blurry
boundaries and task over-lapping were among the factors noted to be at fault for
phenomena such as evasion of responsibility and even policy blunders. Hence, from
the perspectives of officials at the execution level, their job performance will im
prove as a result of having a clearer sense of what they are expected to accomplish.
The Skills and Abilities Perceived by TCG’s Managers
Question 4: To What Extent Are the TCG Managers in Charge of
Multiagency Partnerships Equipped with Necessary
Skills and Abilities?
This is another point worth a dose of caution. According to the Quinn’s
(1996) survey results, “coordination and communication’’ received the highest rate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
108
of recognition, indicating that the surveyed individuals largely agreed that most TCG
officials possess this managerial skill. However, this finding may not stand if com
pared with the interview findings. In the opinion of some interviewees, their col
leagues in the Taipei City Government do not consistently show the ability to coor
dinate or communicate with other people or agencies, especially when an issue is so
complex and controversial as to require persistent efforts from more than one
agency.
In light o f the discussion in this section, it is, therefore, reasonable to con
clude that most TCG officials, although equipped with the abilities for general coor
dination and communication, remain in need of strengthening their abilities to col
laborate and communicate on a cross-agency basis.
The Effectiveness of TCG’s Multiagency Partnerships
Question 5: How Effective are TCG’s Multiagency Partnerships?
What Factors Affect Their Policy Efficacy?
In answering the perplexing questions above, the study conveniently lumps
relevant findings together and presents some concluding remarks:
1. The major incentive and driving force for multiagency partnerships
originated from executives and policy-making agencies. All the data from the sur
vey and interviews show an apparent leadership role of executives (most notably the
Mayor and agency heads) and the lead agencies, in pushing through a cross-agency
collaboration program. Specifically, 72.41% of the surveyed officials and the inter
viewees in discussing the cable-line removal case and the bag-based trash charge
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
109
agreed with this suggestion. Moreover, more than 60% of the surveyed recognized
the leading role of agency executives in this policy aspect. Their opinion was ech
oed by the officials in charge of either the Lao-shang Primary School case or the
Museum case. In contrast to the consensus on the positive function of executives
and agency executives, the City Council is not highly regarded as playing a
leadership role in multiagency collaboration, a phenomenon very worthy of further
investigation.
2. Multiagency partnerships often encounter difficulties, but solution
strategies are in short supply. An alarming sign to be taken seriously is the fact that
a great majority (i.e., 62.93%) of the surveyed officials admitted often being caught
in a difficult situation, while only 35.40% of them knew of concrete response strate
gies to draw upon. These circumstances match neatly with what the corresponding
inquiries in the in-depth interviews have suggested. To help address the issue of
ineffective execution, the researcher proposes several factors likely to have much
impact on the collaboration process and its ultimate outcome. Firstly, what is the
incentive or source of momentum that pushes through multiagency collaboration?
Does it originate from the executive or another source with a highly binding force?
Secondly, what is the mechanism by which cross-agency collaboration is conducted
and what is the process by which difficulties encountered are handled and resolved?
Another way to assess the effectiveness of the City Government’s multi
agency partnerships is based on the perspective of strategic fit, which as discussed
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
110
earlier in the literature review section (see chapter 2) is defined as the degree of con
sistency and complementarity of an organization’s external environment, internal
arrangements and organizational effectiveness. In other words, an ideal kind of stra
tegic fit for an effective multiagency partnership would be characterized by an or
ganization’s staff, materials and financial resources meeting the needs of its external
environment for resources, as well as the need for executive leadership. Unfortu
nately, if there is any link or factor failing to work in tandem or reinforce other fac
tors, the strategic fit tends to foil short of its optimal state, rendering the cross
agency collaboration less than folly effective.
The Pei-tou Spring Museum case is a positive illustration of how the strate
gic fit concept works in practice. In this particular case, all the stakeholders in the
environment enjoyed a high degree of consensus and task integration, making
wicked issues and controversies less likely to arise. Tasks were clearly specified and
assigned to respective officials, who in turn aptly used joint spot-checks and coordi
nating meetings to conduct their inter-organizational collaboration. Despite the rela
tive success of this case, an overall evaluation has confirmed that there remains
much room for the Taipei City Government to strengthen and consolidate its multi
agency partnerships in terms of their optimal strategic fit.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Ill
Issues TCG’s Multiagency Partnerships Encounter
Question 6: What Strategies and Suggestions Are Advisable to Help the
Taipei City Government Deal with Those Challenges and Problems That
Prevent Managerial Smart Practices from Becoming Reality?
Based on what has been discussed so far, the writer tries here to recast the
major concerns in a new light; policy and management implications will be pre
sented in the concluding chapter.
Issue 1: Availability of resources in manpower, materials, and finance. The
issue of budgetary and financial shortages and constraints tends to constitute a pri
mary factor accountable for policy ineffectiveness, not less so in the domain of
multiagency partnerships. In some cases, problems will be non-existent or of little
substantial importance if financial resources are available (such as an authorization
to access the reserved funds). However, conflicts will arise between agencies when
they are forced by the existing circumstances to transfer their own funds originally
earmarked for a function other than the multiagency collaboration.
Likewise, the availability of manpower along with their human attitudes can
be another grave concern. It has been demonstrated in many cases that the personnel
in charge and their mentality and attitudes determine the outcome of a public policy
or program. An aggressive attitude on the part of government officials makes a dif
ficult task less daunting while the lack of such an attitude turns any task into a major
hurdle.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
112
Material resources may constitute another barrier to cross-agency partnership
effectiveness in that resources are not evenly distributed. Poorer agencies will natu
rally show a grudging attitude toward any collaboration that threatens to over-stretch
their already thin resources. It would be totally unreasonable and unrealistic to ask
for a showing of genuine collaboration by any individual agency when the demands
for material input into the partnership are well beyond its capability.
Issue 2: Resource integration. It is advisable to examine resource integration
issues from the perspective of both physical and substantial resources such as man
power. materials, and financial means, and professional knowledge, expertise, and
cross-domain knowledge. Equal attention to both aspects and the establishment of
an appropriate mechanism to integrate them should be high on the agenda of any
executive. Without proper ways to integrate available resources the effects of any
collaboration will be less than optimal.
Issue 3: Ambiguous legal regulations and blurry boundaries. In a democ
racy, “the rule of law” should serve as the highest principle guiding the civil servants
and their behavior. Nevertheless, to the dismay of many public managers, it is often
the case that public workers trying to discharge a duty may be accused of legal viola
tions. In a multiagency partnership, most officials do not perceive the existence of a
strong incentive to motivate them to be dedicated fully to its accomplishment. The
staff worker in the Lau-shang Primary School is merely a vivid example of numer
ous public workers caught between two conflicting sets of laws; he could get
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
113
prosecuted for violating either the Cultural Assets Preservation Law or Urban Plan
ning Law regardless of what decision he made on the dismantling of the buildings.
In cases like this, it is impossible to do one’s job faithfully without causing trouble,
not to mention the more demanding tasks of coordinating other agencies with con
flicting values and equally daunting responsibilities.
Issue 4: Construction of communication networks. An effective communi
cation network for transmitting and sharing accurate, systematic information is of
high importance and value, especially for agencies working toward a task whose ac
complishment requires the efforts of many groups. In carrying out the bag-based
trash charge program, a critical factor highly likely to affect its success was how well
the lead agency (i.e., the department of Environmental Protection) conducted its
communications and coordination work with its partners. In retrospect, without the
Information Office’s input to advance the program’ s advocacy and publicity and the
Police Department’s legitimate employment of force, the program would have been
less remarkable as a multiagency partnership model. In other practical cases where a
cross-agency partnership is a proper and necessary response of the government to the
requests and pressures of varying external stakeholders, policy consistency and co
ordinated efforts will depend on the effectiveness of a communication network.
Issue 5: Effective forms of multiagency partnership. In its evaluation of the
Taipei City Government’s multiagency partnerships in terms of their organizational
arrangements such as ad hoc task forces, joint meetings, and special committees, it
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
114
has been proposed previously in this dissertation that these forms do serve particular
functions to varying degrees in different policy contexts. It has also been noted that
in certain circumstances no particular form of partnership would work well. Ironi
cally, it is human networks that are built on personal connections that serve these
purposes rather than formal organizations. In other words, the evasive nature of a
human network based public program may defy any serious contemplation or aca
demic effort.
Issue 6: Accountability. It is only natural that public workers show a ten
dency not to assume tasks not rightfully within their job descriptions, which is nei
ther a novel nor unique finding in the current study. In a circumstance like this, a
clearer division of labor will help rid agencies of many problems. To the contrary,
when government agencies show inertia and lukewarm support for a public program
falling completely within a particular area of an agency’s responsibility, some
institutional mechanisms and incentives may be called for. The participants in the
NGT session indeed suggested that a clearer line of tasks and responsibilities will
hopefully work well to root out this administrative ill. But one must ask, are there
better ways or mechanisms for executives to ponder?
Issue 7: Attitudes and behaviors of public managers. In any human en
deavor, the one factor that is indispensable and ever-present is “humans” for their
contributions from inception of a program to its completion determine its course
and results. A positive, aggressive attitude and an optimistic, collaborative
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
115
disposition on the part of staff tend to determine the positive outcome of a cross
agency partnership. That is to say, human quality and work ethics are worthy of fur
ther exploration.
Issue 8: Strategies available to make multiagency partnerships a top agency
priority. Given the undeniable fact that multiagency partnerships are not by their
formal organizational arrangements considered legitimate tasks or exclusive
responsibilities; techniques and strategies are needed to ensure their acceptance by
agencies as a policy priority.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
116
CHAPTER 6
REFLECTIONS AND IMPLICATIONS
In addition to providing answers to the six research questions, which was the
focus of chapter 5ive, this study also aspires to examine the issue of multiagency
partnerships as a practical problem-solving tool from an integrated perspective of
public management. Thus, it seeks to expedite the discovery of knowledge that is of
practical use to researchers and practitioners alike.
Reflections
Partnerships as a management tool have increased in numbers, but the mo
mentum behind each partnership varies and its respective effectiveness can be
widely divergent. Based on the research findings analyzed and discussed previously,
this dissertation concludes with a synthesis of the major ideas derived from this em
pirical investigation with insights from other relevant research works. It is a premise
of this researcher that public managers will have to gain something in terms of con
ceptual enlightenment and practical guidelines before they make a commitment to
interagency collaboration.
Multiagency Partnerships in TCG Are Bureaucratic
in Structure, but Learning Entities in Essence
1. Based on the six models of organizations proposed by Morgan (1998,
pp. 283-301), multiagency partnerships in TCG mostly belong to model two (Le., the
Bureaucracy with a senior “management” team) and model three (i.e., the Bureauc
racy with Project Teams and Task Forces). As has been concluded in chapter 5, the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
117
public managers engaged in the investigated cases resort to the two models of part
nerships so that they may draw on each partner’s expertise or background to accom
plish critical tasks. Working in a context constrained and limited by prior legisla
tion, administrative controls, and staff members’ habituated practices, public manag
ers can only strive to draw the greatest output from the available workforce when
they are allowed neither extensive personnel replacements nor new hiring.
2. Essentially, partnerships are an adaptation mechanism within a bu
reaucracy; partnerships may be established and employed using the concepts of
coalignment for the purpose of meeting demands from their environments. Many
factors account for the fact that Taipei City Government uses partnerships, such as
joint meetings, task forces, project teams, and ad hoc committees to respond to man
agement tasks. First, what is evident is the increase in the number of public pro
grams embracing multiple values. For example, transportation program managers
focus not only on paving highways and adding lanes of traffic, but also have to cope
with environmental degradation, housing dislocations, noise pollution, and other
costs of such programs, making managerial problems more complex (Peters, 2000).
Further, the fast expansion of the local governmental agenda also encourages juris
dictional conflicts, overlaps, and potential clashes among departments. As “policy
space” becomes increasingly filled with public programs and initiatives, it becomes
ever more difficult to operate without finding a particular effort touching upon
related programs and influences managed by other departments o f government. In
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
118
such circumstances, it makes sense to try to link the operations in one way or an
other, or to provide some infrastructure of mutual consultation and information shar
ing (O’Toole, 2000; Guy Peters, 2000a). Another factor reflects the need for gov
ernments to effectively address and solve wicked problems by means of involving
multiple jurisdictions and departments. However, negative consequences may in
clude cross-boundary communication costs, complex sign-off authorization proce
dures, multiple veto and approval points, and the like. In addition, politics per se
plays a symbolic role in that government may, in fact, try to gamer public support
and promote its public image when it vows to resort to all means possible including
multiagency partnerships to overcome barriers.
3. It is advised that public managers, particularly those of TCG, break
the habitual thinking and customary practice of relying on a hierarchical approach to
decision making. Instead of counting on top executives doing the actual coordina
tion and making the final decisions and judgments, members of a partnership should
take initiatives in solving problems, even under circumstances in which goal consen
sus and technology certainty are problematic or controversial Indeed, there is much
insight to be learned from the nine governance structures proposed by Huh &
Walcott (1990).
Managers in Partnerships Can Never Assume
Support but Must Work to Build It
1. Managers typically cannot rely on hierarchical institutional arrange
ments to make a partnership work. Instead, they have to develop an infrastructure of
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
119
communication—channels, language, signals, and so forth—for the sake of policy
coherence. That is why social networking is regarded by TCG officials as a smart
practice that facilitates partnerships. Yet, a critical factor for effective partnerships is
human resources, the kind of people who are flexible, able to communicate and col
laborate across functional boundaries, and able to deal with conflict and functional
diversity. In other words, sensitivity to interpersonal and group dynamics is of im
portance to the advancement of stronger shared goals, greater shared knowledge, and
higher levels of mutual trust and respect among partners.
2. One of the major findings from the Quinn (1996) survey shows that
TCG officials think highly of their own skills in “communicating effectively (5.72),
working productively (5.58), and understanding self and others (5.43), while being
inadequate in managing conflict (4.96) and managing cross-boundary functions
(4.92). This strongly suggests that their organizational culture has a conservative
tendency to causing them to avoid conflict by minding their own business. At best,
they are receptive to interagency collaboration in a passive way. As is congruent
with the high consensus indicated in the survey results, supervisory monitoring re
mains an effective management tool to support interagency collaboration, largely
through coaching, directing, and feedback, which is quite contrary to conventional
thinking (Ouchi, 1979, pp. 833-848).
3. Current research into the actual working of multiagency collaboration
in Taipei City Government suggests that the values and motives of public managers
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
120
determine to a certain degree a partnership’s effectiveness. A working partnership is
premised on a sense of common dedication among its partners. Other than better
pay for civil servants, improved flexibility and substantial incentive arrangements
may work even better. Virtually every person has the capacity to transcend their nar
row self-interest and to approach tasks in a responsive and responsible way. Simon
(2000, p. 752), in a well-remarked lecture, suggests that organizational identifica
tion- a strong identification, is not only motivational but also cognitive, along with
the organization and its goals—it gives an organization remarkable power to secure
coordinated behavior of large numbers of people to accomplish organizational goals.
Therefore, it is an urgent task to cultivate in public managers a stronger sense of
identification and dedication.
Team Building and Information Technology Appear to Be
Innovative Wavs of Extending the Potency of Partnerships
1. Taipei City Government has for some time tried to design more effec
tive teams, develop more useful information tools, and create organizational contexts
that support team work and innovation, all in the hope of translating these three core
activities into high-performance work systems.
2. Partnerships in operation in TCG are basically designed to work
around teams. Although the foil potential of using teams to accomplish work is ac
knowledged, many obstacles linger and persist as a consequence of suspicion and
distrust (Koehler, 2000, pp. 15-16). In most cases, top managers have risen to the
top because of their management effectiveness in a vertical organization. These
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
121
managers often provide U p service to horizontal initiatives, but tend to hang on to the
old concepts of the vertical organization. Another obstacle stems from negative atti
tudes displayed by members in a partnership. Many members may openly discredit
the partnership or implicitly resist management attempts at change by arguing that
the move to partnerships is just another program that will result in nothing new. One
more obstacle concerns members distrusting the intent of top management, claiming
that it will be "business as usual” when the new drive or movement ceases to be
taken seriously and management's attention is diverted elsewhere.
3. It is important to create a system of flexible information technology
(IT) architecture as a knowledge management (KM) tool although this process is
complex, costly, and often takes time to design and implement. Public administra
tors in most nations and regions, including Taipei City Government, have started to
implement selected approaches, like Intranets and Internets, to strengthen their inte
gration efforts to achieve better coordination, cooperation, and collaboration. This
trend will be accelerating as a natural result of the learning and sharing of new ex
periences and new knowledge. Despite much enthusiasm about becoming a full,
well-functioning cyber city, Taipei remains many steps behind the ideal model in
that its IT infrastructure is yet to be folly employed as a convenient, economical plat
form for coordinating interagency collaboration.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
122
Leadership Is an Imperative Path to the Success of Partnerships
Bardach (2000, p. 20), in an article that discusses the importance of leader
ship in interagency collaboration, concludes that leadership is a factor highly critical
for the success of partnerships. Effective leadership is so important because it helps
interagency partners integrate resources, organize tasks effectively, guide collabora
tions in reasonable and constructive directions, and create the climate of trust and
commitment needed by a smooth partnership. All the relevant data collected
throughout the current study clearly indicate that strong leadership may critically
affect the successful practice of partnerships in TCG. The fact that few members of
partnerships consider themselves capable and willing leaders is vexing and worthy
of serious attention.
To participate folly in a partnership’s strategy, innovation, and leadership ac
tivities, a partner must wield influence. One effective way is for each partnership
participant to operate as a staff leader; leadership in partnerships cannot be confined
exclusively to people at the top. Much value will be added to collaboration efforts if
staff professionals are encouraged and motivated to offer expertise in their functional
areas. Another way to add value is the smart use of power. As emphasized earlier,
trusting relationships between partners help build up teams capable of operating con
structively and successfully. The “Taipei Experience” has demonstrated that many
of the complexities of interagency collaboration are resolved, not by trust alone, but
by implicit or explicit power relations among agencies. Furthermore, it is likely that
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
123
power can be hidden behind a facade of “trust and rhetoric of collaboration.” In
other words, power may be factually a “functional equivalent” of trust in ensuring
predictability in coordination efforts (Clegg & Hardy, 1999, p. 424).
Configuring human resources is a big challenge confronting leaders. There is
ample evidence that partnership arrangements are difficult to manage and often fail
either to meet expectations or to achieve collaborative advantage (Meschi, 1997;
Vangen & Huxham, 1998). It is never conceptually simple, nor practically easy to
ensure that the right members are included in a partnership. The picture presented
from this study has further confirmed the difficulties leadership has to solve. How to
achieve the “right” mix of individuals and organizations, how to involve members in
different capacities, or with different statuses, how to represent the desired interests,
and how to maintain a stability of membership are among the many significant chal
lenges. Equally challenging is the question of deciding who should make these deci
sions. Literature has shown that it is hardly possible to satisfy all considerations in
any collaboration. Therefore, it is not surprising that most of the people involved in
the partnerships referred to in this study do not delve into the configuration issue too
thoroughly.
Implications for Public Policy and Management
Based upon the systematic presentation of the major findings and analyses,
the study tries at this point to suggest, several salient themes and some strategies
to facilitate the solution of problems affecting multiagency partnerships as public
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
124
policy and management instruments. The following description is thematically
divided into two parts: (a) institution-building and (b) operational strategies.
Institution Building
Update and clarify regulations and decrees in conflict with each other. “Rule
by law” is the core value civil servants are instructed to live by, but legal codes may
not be written and updated in a timely and satisfactory manner due to varying politi
cal forces interacting with each other. To make a cross-agency partnership work
more smoothly, the Rules & Regulations Commission should be more actively in
volved when its engagement is called for by the circumstances. The Commission's
timely clarification and interpretation may provide some leeway for public managers
to maneuver for the sake of rendering effective public service. Structurally speak
ing, a partnership is more likely to harvest positive results if legal professionals are
recruited into the collaboration as well.
Construct an Effective Incentive Mechanism
The study in its previous discussion presents a pessimistic picture of how in
teragency collaborators are motivated in their public service, which is dismaying
from the perspective of human resource management. A sufficiently fair and equita
ble incentive system is one that gives due credit to whomever deserves it. Partici
pants in interagency collaboration should be included as part of the regular perform
ance evaluation managers undertake periodically. A system-wide recognition and
reward program must be initiated that is designed in ways to reward individual as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
125
well as team performance. A merit-pay system that is based on both competency
and performance (individual and team) can be employed to motivate partners. In
addition, creating lateral career paths that enable people to move from one project
team or business unit to another will periodically expose them to new people, func
tions, perspectives, and possibly promotion opportunities. Incentive mechanisms
will function more smoothly when accountability is built into the system. Partici
pants should be held accountable for the success and failure of critical tasks. Puni
tive measures and sanctions have to be put in place as an integral part of the whole
incentive system.
Establish a Knowledge Management Platform as a Mechanism
for Communication and Coordination
Given the need to improve their adaptive capabilities in complex and chang
ing environments through collaborative learning and innovation, partners must learn
how to transfer knowledge and maintain ties (Powell, Koput & Smith-Doerr. 19%;
Von Hippel. 1988). Access to knowledge and other resources that are not possessed
by each partner individually can be facilitated through a platform to which all the
partners enjoy easy access. Moreover, empirical knowledge about the four represen
tative cases has confirmed the importance of creating and maintaining a communica
tion platform via which stakeholders, including concerned citizens and interest
groups, may obtain updated information and voice their concerns. Input from those
having a stake in the management of a public program helps solve problems, even
wicked issues, because it expands the “zone of meaning.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
126
Operational Strategies
1. Construct and facilitate informal organizations. The success of a pub
lic policy or program depends to a great extent upon the execution acumen and will
ingness of front-level personnel. By developing human networks, it may be easier to
channel individual expertise and resources to provide creative advice on strategic
problems and establish a trustful, working relationship. Besides the apparent advan
tage of helping alleviate the cost often caused by prolonged red tape, partners
cemented by mutual trust and tacit knowledge and understanding about each other
may end up building communities of practice, and common identities, the ideal state
of a partnership.
2. Cultivate collaborative culture and leadership. Conflicts of interest
and divergent goals (or agendas) are among factors detrimental to interagency part
nerships. Instead of trading off their goals, collaborators should share a common
understanding from which they orchestrate outcomes and find ways to multiply each
other’s resources (Ulrich & Lake, 1990, p. 212). With its problem-solving orienta
tion, a collaborative culture is based on the norm that problems are opportunities to
collaborate, not just chances to criticize. This healthy, constructive assumption
works because by combining resources it is capable of maximizing the potential
gains for all parties concerned. Since the problems which interagency collaborators
face are often highly complicated and multifaceted, conventional patterns of hierar
chical leadership are no longer suited to today’s challenges. To be effective, new
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
127
leaders are expected to be facilitators, stewards, coaches, designers, and teachers
who help transform followers into partners, co-leaders, lifelong learners, and col
laborators (Hickman, 1998, p. S7S). Effective leaders are those able to recognize
every partner’ s leadership qualities and put them to good use. This new culture and
leadership paradigm may be of practical help in addressing the apparent lack of en
gagement and incentives so dismayingly shown by the public managers examined in
the current study.
Strengthen Cross-boundary Management Training
Framing an appropriate partnership configuration requires a holistic under
standing about how to achieve a strategic fit between external demands and internal
arrangements. However, the findings of the study, as summarized and presented in
chapter five, have demonstrated that the complexity of the partnership task may ex
ceed the collaborative capabilities of its members (Alter & Hage, 1993, pp. 227-258;
Singh, 1997). Cooperation is influenced by personal and interpersonal as well as
structural variables (Dickson & Weaver, 1997). In other words, training may have to
go beyond functional expertise and place new emphasis on the skills of interagency
collaborators in dealing with a dynamic, relentless, and iterative process.
A dynamic, nonlinear process of training with an emphasis on how to share
knowledge and experience with other partners can help turn out people with more
political savvy, interpersonal sensitivity, and broadened perspectives. Among the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
128
various practices and methods for management training, the following two are
particularly relevant.
The first is to create collaborative work practices through understanding,
sharing, and learning so that partners may avail themselves of sufficient, comple
mentary, and diverse knowledge and expertise. Secondly, “expert networks” may be
set up and used to provide real-time consultation and guidance on complex or unfa
miliar tasks. Communication channels may include on-site expert visits, e-mail,
groupware-based communication, video conferencing, and other conventional meth
ods. In the meantime, executives and decision makers should be actively involved
and engaged in the partnership training process (Wiig, 2000, pp. 32-34).
Directions for Future Research
What the study has accomplished is a rather in-depth examination of the
Taipei City Government's multiagency partnerships; the research has been particu
larly based on the perspectives of co-alignment, with empirical, operational issues
being the focus. Practical suggestions for making cross-agency collaboration more
effective have been proposed. Yet, a few words about possible directions for similar
research efforts are offered here as a constructive suggestions for academic circles.
First of all, a significant contribution of the study is its presentation of the true pic
ture of a metropolitan government's efforts to tackle the management of cross
boundary issues as a serious concern. Using “strategic fit” as the core conceptual
organizing framework, the study undertook an integrated scrutiny of the various
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
129
aspects of its target organization, including its external environment, internal organ
izational arrangements, and organizational effectiveness. The methodology reflects
a triangulation approach that incorporates extensive literature research along with
documentary analyses, four qualitative case studies, the Nominal Group Technique,
and quantitative analyses of data collected from several surveys.
Secondly, the current study may serve as a bridge for cross-cultural studies by
the international academic community on multiagency partnerships, especially in the
public sector. Due to the shared, similar nature of governance issues and the adopted
methodology, the study expects to provide local experience as a basis for future dia
logue among a widening academic circle.
Moreover, given the study's research framework and faithful execution of
well-established procedures, the issues of validity and reliability have been suffi
ciently addressed. That is to say, results of the study may have practical reference
value and theoretical bearings, as is echoed by Bardach (2000, p. 21) when he says,
“The analysis is, after all, based primarily on structural features of bureaucracy and
government which are fundamental and apply in all democracies, and on assump
tions about motivations in human nature which transcend the particularities of cul
ture and history.”
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
130
Nevertheless, some suggestions for future research efforts are as follows:
First, future studies may have more generalizability if variables particular to
a locale can be explored and identified through a qualitative approach and later in
corporated in the research framework.
Second, construction of a set of indicators capable of measuring the degree of
coalignment may be attempted by employing proven tools, such as the Crawford
Slip Method.
Third, future research emphasis needs to be placed on exploring what admin
istrative arrangements are appropriate for the various types of knowledge platforms
needed for successful partnership tasks. It is imperative for public managers to have
systematic considerations of broader work processes or knowledge mechanisms
within partnerships.
Fourth, organizational identity as a moderating variable may be a potentially
productive research focus, given the accepted perspective of “partners as stake
holders” among theorists and practitioners alike.
Last but not least important, decision makers will be appreciative if evalua
tion criteria governing interagency collaboration are fashioned and put to work in
identifying successful partnerships and improving those failing to work.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
131
REFERENCES
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
132
REFERENCES
Aldrich, H. E. (1979). Organization and environments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Alexander, E. R. (1995). How organizations act together: Interorganizational
coordination in theory and practice. Luxembourg: Gordon and Breach
Science.
Alter, C., & Hage, J. (1993). Organizations working together. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
AnsofF, H. I., (1979. The changing shape of the strategic problem. In D. E.
Schendel & C. W. Hofer (Eds.), Strategic Management: A New View o f Busi
ness Policy and Planning (pp. 30-40). Boston, MA: Little, Brown, and Co.
Astley, W. G. (1984). Toward an appreciation of collective strategy. Academy o f
Management Review, 9(3), 526-535.
Baker, W. E. (1994). Networking smart: How to build relationships for personal
and organizational success. NewYork: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Bantel, K. A., & Jackson, S.E. (1989). Top management and innovations in bank
ing: Does the composition of the top management team make a difference?
Strategic Management Journal, 10, 107-124.
Bardach, E. (1998). Getting agencies to work together: The practice and theory o f
managerial craftsmanship. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution press.
Bardach, E. (2000). Collaboration across agency boundaries: The uses of leader
ship.” Paper presented at International Symposium: Building Policy
Coherence, Taipei, Taiwan.
Barringer, B., & Harrison, J. (2000). Walking a tightrope: Creating value through
interorganizational relationships. Journal o f Management, 26(3), 367-403.
Beamish P. W., & Killing, J. P. (Eds.). (1997). Cooperative strategies: European
perspectives. San Francisco, CA: The New Lexington Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
133
Blackford, M. G., & Kerr, K. A. (1994). Business enterprise in American history.
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Blair, T. (1998). Leading The Way: A New Vision For Local Government.
London; Institute for Public Policy research.
Bennis, W., & Nanus, B. (1985). The strategies fo r taking charge. New York:
Harper Collins.
Boase, J. (2000). Beyond government? The appeal of public-private partnerships.
Canadian Public Administration, 43(1), 75-92.
Bolman, L. G., & Terrence E. D. (1997). Reframing organizations: Artistry,
choice, and leadership (2nd ed.). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Bresser, R. K. (1988). Matching collective and competitive strategies. Strategic
Management Journal, 9 ,375-385.
Burton, J. (1995). Composite strategy: The combination of collaboration and com
petition. Journal o f General Management, 21,1-23.
Byrne, J. A. (1993, February). The virtual corporation. Business Week, 98-103.
Chandler, A. D. (1962). Strategy and Structure. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Child, J., & Faulkner, D. (1998). Strategies o f cooperation: Managing alliances,
networks, and jo in t ventures. New York: Oxford University Press.
Chisholm, D. (1989). Coordination without hierarchy: Informal structures in
multiorganizational systems. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Clegg, S. R., & Dunkeriey, D. (1980). Organization, class and control. London,
England: Ooutledge and Kegan Paul.
Clegg, S. R., & Hardy, C. (Eds.). (1999). Studying organization: Theory & me
thod. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cropper, S. (1996). Collaborative working and the issue of sustainability. In C.
Huxham (Ed.) (pp. 176-180). Creating Collaborative Advantage. London,
England: Sage Publications.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
134
Cohen, S., & Mankin, D. (1998). The changing nature of work: Managing the im
pact of information technology. In S. Mohrman, J. Galbraith, E. Lawler QI,
& Associates (Eds), Tomorrow’ s organization: Crafting winning capabili
ties in a dynamic world (pp. 154-178). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
Publishers.
Cook, J., Staniforth D., & J. Stewart (Eds). (1997). The learning organization in the
public services. Brookfield, VT: Gower.
Daka-Mulwanda, Thornburg, V. K., Filbert, & Klein, T. (1995). Collaboration of
services for children and families: A synthesis of recent research and rec
ommendations. Family Relations, 4 4 ,219-223.
Das, T. K., & Teng, B. (2000). A resource-based theory of strategic alliances.
Journal o f Management, 26(1), 31-61.
Dawes, S. S. (1996). Interagency information sharing: Expected benefits, manage
able Risks. Journal o f Policy Analysis and Management, 15(3), 377-394.
Dennis, L. B. (Ed.) (1996). Practical public affairs in an era o f change: A Com
munications Guide fo r Business, Government, and College. I .an ham , M D :
University Press of America, Inc.
Denzin, N. K., & Yvonna, S. L. (Eds.) (1998). Strategies o f qualitative inquiry.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Deputy Minister Task Forces (DMTF). (1996). Managing horizontal policy issues.
Canadian Centre fo r Management Development Series on Governance and
Public Management. Montreal, Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Dickson, P. H., & Weaver, K. M. (1997). Environmental determinants and individ
ual-level moderators o f alliance use. Academy o f Management Journal, 40,
404-425.
Dodgson, M (1993). Organizational learning: A review of some literatures.
Organizational Studies, 14(3), 375-94.
Drucker, P. F. (1990). Innovation. Boston, MA: Harvard Business School.
Eberts, M. (Ed.). (1997). The form ation ofinter-organizational networks. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
135
Fairtlough, G. (1994). Creative compartments: A design fo rfu tu re organizations.
London, England: Adamantine.
Frankfort-Nachmias, C., & Nachmias, D. (19%). Research methods in the social
sciences. New York: St. Martin’s Press.
Fombrun, C., & Astley, W. G. (1983). Strategies of collective action: The case of
the financial services industry. Advances in Strategic Management, 12, 125-
139.
Fox, A. (1974). Beyond contract: Work, power and trust relations. London,
England: Faber and Faber.
Galbraith, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. & Associates. (1993). Organizing fo r the future:
The new logic fo r managing complex organizations. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Gallik,J. S. (1989). Factors contributing to the emergence o f an intrapreneurial
event, and an exploratory study o f organizational learning in ecological con
figurations. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Seattle University, Seattle,
Washington.
Garvey, G. (1993). Facing the bureaucracy: Living and dying in a public agency.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
GitteU, J. H. (2000). Paradox of coordination and control. California Management
Review, 42(3), 101-117.
Granovetter. M. (1985). Economic action and social structure: The problem of
embeddedness. American Journal o f Sociology, 91, 481-510.
Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground fo r multiparty problems.
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gray, B. (1998). From bureaucracies to networks: The emergence of new
organization forms. In Hickman (Ed.), Leading organizations: Perspectives
fo r a new era (pp. 467-480). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gulati, R. (1995). Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal
analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 2, 457-474.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
136
Guy Peters, B. (2000). Concepts and theories o f horizontal management. Paper
presented at International Symposium: Building Policy Coherence, Taipei,
Taiwan.
Guy Peters, B. (1998a, Summer). Managing horizontal government: The politics of
coordination. Public Administration, 76,295-311.
Guy Peters, B. (1998b). With a little help from our friends’: Public-private partner
ships as institutions and Instruments. In Jon Pierre (Ed.), Partnerships in ur
ban governance: European and American experience (pp. 11-33). London,
England: Macmillan.
Guy Peters, B., & Savoie, D. (Eds). (1995). Governing in a changing environment.
Canadian centre fo r management development series on governance and
public management. Montreal Canada: McGill-Queen’s University Press.
Hall, T. E.. & O’Toole, L. J. (2000, January). Structures for policy implementation:
An analysis of national legislation, 1965-1966 and 1993-1994. Administra
tion and Society, 3/(6), 667-686.
Harding A. (1998). Public-private partnerships in the UK. In Jon Pierre (Ed.),
Partnerships in urban governance: European and American experience
(pp. 71-92). London, England: Macmillan.
Hardy, C., & Phillips, N. (1995). Overcoming illusions o f trust: Towards a com
municative theory o f trust and power. Montreal Canada: McGill Working
Papers.
Heath, R. L. (1997). Strategic issues management: Organizations and public
policy challenges. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hickman, G. R. (Ed.). (1998). Leading organizations: Perspectives fo r a new era.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hofstede. G. 1993. Cultural constraints in management theories. Academy o f
Management Review, 7(1), 81-94.
Hood,C. C. (1986). The tools o f government. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House.
Huang, J. H., Huang, C. J., & Yu, C. (1999, April). Management competency o f the
senior public executives in Taiwan. Paper presented at the American Society
for Public Administration National Conference, Orlando, Florida.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
137
Hull, C., & Hjern, B. (1986). H elping small firm s grow. London, England: Croom
Helm.
Huh, K. M., & Walcott, C. (1990). Governing public organization: Politics, struc
tures, and institutional design. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing
Company.
Huxham, C. (Ed.). (1996). Creating collaborative advantage. London, England:
Sage Publications.
Ingraham, P. W., & Kneedler, A. E. (2000). Dissecting the black box: Toward a
model and measures of government management performance. In Jeffrey L.
Brudney, Laurence J. O’Toole, Jr., & Hal G. Rainey (Eds.), Advancing pub
lic management: New developments in theory, methods, and practice (pp.
235-252). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Jennings, E.,& Ewalt, J. A. (1998). Interorganizational coordination, administrative
consolidation, and policy performance. Public Administration Review, 58(5),
417-428.
Keating, M. (1998). Commentary: Public-private partnerships in the United States
from a European perspective. In Jon Pierre (Ed.), Partnerships in Urban
Governance: European and American Experience (pp. 163-174). London,
England: Macmillan.
Kemagham, K. (1993). Partnership and public administration: Conceptual and
practical considerations. Canadian Public Administration, 36( 1), 57-76.
Kettl, D. F., & Milward, H. B. (Eds.). (19%). The state o f public management.
Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press.
Kickert, W. (1993). Complexity, governance and dynamics: Conceptual explora
tions of public network management. In J. Kooiman (Ed.), Modern govern
ance (pp. 22-39). London, England: Sage Publications.
Kickert, W., Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, K (1997). Introduction: A management
perspective on policy networks. In W. Kickert, E. H. Klijn, & J. Koppenjan
(Eds.), Managing Complex Networks: Strategies fo r the Public Sector (pp.
1-4). London: Sage Publications.
Koehler, J. (2000). Strategies fo r mutual trust and team building. Paper presented
at International Symposium: Building Policy Coherence, Taipei, Taiwan.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
138
Lambright, W. H. (1997). The rise and Ml o f interagency cooperation: The U.S.
global change research program. Public Adm inistration Review, 57(1), 36-
44.
Lax, D. A., & Sebenius, J. K. (1986). The manager as negotiator: Bargaining fo r
cooperation and competitive gain. New York: The Free Press.
Lazerson, M. (199S). A new Pheonix? Modern putting out in the Modena knitwear
industry. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4 0 ,34-59.
Limerick, D., & Cunnington, B. (1993). M anaging the new organization: A blue
print fo r networks and strategic alliances. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Lowndes, V., & Skelcher, C. (1998). The dynamic of multiorganizational partner
ships: An analysis of changing modes of governance. Public Administra
tion, 76, 313-33.
Lowndes, V., McCabe, S., & Skelcher, C. (1996). Networks, pamerships and urban
regeneration. Local Economy, 11, 4.
Lynn, L., Heinrich, C., & Hill, C. (2000). Studying governance and public man
agement: Challenges and prospects. J-PART, 10(2), 233-261.
Magill, S. L. (1992). Achievingfirm-environment coalignment: Organizational
coalignment: Organizational antecedents to adaptation and manipulation
fo r firm s undergoing changes o f strategy. Unpublished dissertation, Indiana
University, Indiana.
Mankin, D., Cohen, S., & Bikson, T. (1998). Team and technology: Extending the
power of collaboration. In S. Mohrman, J. Galbraith, E. Lawler, & Associ
ates (Eds.), Tomorrow’ s organization: Crafting winning capabilities in a
dynamic world (pp. 309-329). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Marcus, A. A., Kaufman, A. M., & Beam, D. R. (1987). Business strategy and pub
lic policy. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press, Inc.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
McGuire, J. B. (1976). A dialectical analysis of interorganizational Networks.
Journal o f Management, 1 4 ,109-124.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
139
McKinney, J. B., & Howard, L. C. (1998). Public administration: Balancing
power and accountability (2nd ed.). Westport, CN: Praeger.
Miles, R. E., & Snow, C. (1986). Organizations: New concepts for new forms.
California Management Review, 2 8 ,62-73.
Miller, D., & P. Friesen, (1980). Archetypes of organizational transition. Adminis
trative Science Quarterly, 2 5 ,268-299.
Mintzberg, H. (1989). M intzberg on management: Inside our strategic world o f
organizations. New York: The Free Press.
Mintzberg, H. (1979). The structuring o f organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Mintzberg, H. (1972). The nature o f managerial work. New York: HarperCollins.
Mliken, F. J. (1987) Three types of perceived uncertainty about the environment:
State, effect, and response uncertainty. Academy o f Management Review, 12,
133-143.
Morgan, G. (1998). From bureaucracies to networks: The emergence of new
organizational forms. In Hickman (Ed.), Leading organizations: Perspec
tives fo r a new era (pp. 283-286). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Murray, A I. (1989). Top management group heterogeneity and firm performance.
Strategic Management Journal, 10, 125-141.
Nadler, D. A., & Tushman, M. L. (1990). Beyond the charismatic leader: Leader
ship and organizational change. California Management Review, 32, 77-97.
Oliver, C. (1990). Determinants of interorganizational relationships: Integration
and future directions. Academy o f Management Review, 15(2), 241-265.
Osbom, R. N., & Hagedoom, J. (1997). The institutioalization and evolutionary
dynamics of interorganizational alliances and networks. Academy o f Man
agement Journal, 40, 261-278.
Ostroff, F. (1999). The horizontal organization: What the organization o f the fu
ture looks like and how it delivers value to customers. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
140
O’Toole, L. J. (2000a). Different public managements? Implications of structural
context in hierarchies and networks. In Jeffrey L. Brudney, Laurence J.
O’Toole, Jr., & Hal G. Rainey (Eds.), Advancing Public Management: A lew
Developments in Theory, Methods, and Practice (pp. 19-32). Washington,
DC: Georgetown University Press.
O’Toole, L. J. (2000b). Implementing strategies fo r public management in net
works. Paper presented at International Symposium: Building Policy Coher
ence, Taipei, Taiwan.
O’Toole, L. J., & Meier, K. J. (1999, October). Modeling the impact of public man
agement: Implications and structural contest. Journal o f Public Adminsitra-
tion Research and Theory, 9, (4), 505-526.
O’Toole, L. J. (1997). Treating networks seriously: Practical and research-based
agendas in public administration. Public Administration Review, 57(1), 45-
52.
Ouchi, W . (1979). A conceptual framework for the design of organizational control
mechanisms. Management Science, 24(9), 833-848.
Peters, T. J., & Waterman, R. H. (1982). In search o f excellence. New York:
Harper & Row.
Pfeffer, J. (1992). Managing with power: Politics and influence in organizations.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Pollitt, C. (1999). Managerialism and the public service: The Angle-American
Experience. Oxford, CN: Basil Blackwell, Inc.
Powell, W . W . (1990). Neither market nor hierarchy: Network forms of organiza
tion. In B. W . Staw & L. L. Cummings (Eds.), Organizational behavior (pp.
201-233). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Powell, W . W ., Kput, K. W., & Smith-Doerr, L. (1996). Interorganization collabora
tion and the locus of innovation: Networks of learning in biotechnology.
Administrative Science Quarterly, 4 1 ,1-33.
Pro van, K. G., & Milward, H. B. (1995). A preliminary theory of interorganiza
tional network effectiveness: A comparative study of four community men
tal health systems. Administration Science Quarterly, 40, 1-33.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
141
Reed, M. (1985). Redirections in organizational analysis. London, England:
Tavisotock.
Quinn, R. E., Faerman, S. R., Thompson, M. P., Michael, P., & McGrath, M.
(1996). Becoming a Master Manager: A competency framework. New
York: John Wiley & Sons.
Quinn, J. B. (1980). Strategies for change: Local incrementalism. Homewook, IL:
Richard D. Irwin, Inc.
Radin, B. A. (1998). Bridging multiple worlds: Central, regional and local partners
in rural development. In Jon Pierre (Ed.), Partnerships in urban governance:
Europena and American experience (pp. 140-162). London, England:
Macmillan.
Rainey, H. G. 1997. Understanding and managing public organizations. (2n d ed.).
San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Rhodes, R. (1997a). Forward in W. Kickert, Klijn, E. H., & Koppenjan, J. (Eds.).
Managing complex networks: Strategies for the public sector. London,
England: Sage Publications.
Rhodes, R. (1997b). Understanding governance. Buckingham, UK: Open
University Press.
Ring, P. S., & Van de Ven, A. H. (1994). Developmental process of cooperative
interorganizational relationship. Academy of Management Review, 79(1), 90-
118.
Rojek, C. (1995). Decentering leisure: Rethinking leisure theory. London,
England: Sage Publications.
Romanelli, E., & Tushman, M. L. (1986). Inertia, environments, and strategic
choice: A quasi-experimental design for comparative-longitudinal research.
Management Science, 3 2 ,608-621.
Sagawa, S., & Segal, E. (2000). Common interest, common good: Creating value
through business and social sector partnerships. California Management
Review, 42(2), 105-121.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
142
Saxton, T. (1997). The effects of partner and relationship characteristics on alliance
outcomes. Academy o f Management Journal, 4 0 ,443-461.
Shaughnessy, H. (Ed.). (1994). Collaboration management: New project and part
nering techniques. NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Shane, S. A. (1996). Hybrid organizational arrangements and their implications for
firm growth and survival: A study of new franchisors. Academy o f Man
agement Journal, 39, 216-234.
Siegel, G. B., & Clayton, R. (1996). Mass interviewing and the marshalling o f
ideas to improve performance: The Crawford slip method. New York:
University Press of America, Inc.
Silverman, D. (1971). The theory o f organizations: Sociological framework.
London: Heinemann.
Simon, H. (2000, December). Public administration in today’s world of organiza
tions and markets. PS, 749-756.
Singh, K. (1997). The impact of technological complexity and interfirm coopera
tion on business survival. Academy o f Management Journal, 40, 339-367.
Smith, K. G., Carroll, J. C., & Ashford, S. J. (1995). Intra- and interorganizational
cooperation: Toward a research agenda. Administrative Management
Journal, 38( 1), 7-23.
Sproule-Jones, M. (2000). Horizontal management: Implementing programs across
interdependent organizations. Canadian Public Administration, 43( 1), 93-
109.
Stem, R. N. (1979). The development of an interorganizational control network:
The case of intercollegiate athletics. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24,
242-262.
Stewart, J. (1997). Why the learning organization?” In J. Cook, D. Staniforth, & J.
Stewart (Eds.), The learning organization in the public services (pp. 23-38).
Brookfield, VM: Gower.
Stoker, G. (1998). Public-private partnership and urban governance. In Jon Pierre,
(Ed.) Partnerships in Urban Governance: European and American Experi
ence (pp. 34-51). London, England: Macmillan.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
143
Stoker, R. P. (1991). Reluctant partners: Implementing federal policy. Pittsburgh,
PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Stone, D. (1997). Policy paradox: The art o f political decision making. New
York: W. W. Norton & Company.
Taket, A., & White, L. (2000). Partnership & participation: Decision-making in
the multiagency setting. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Taylor, J. A., Snellen, I. T., & Zuurmond, A. (Eds.). (1997). Beyond BPR in public
administration: Institutional transformation in an information age.
Washington, DC: IOS Press Inc.
Thorelli, H. B. (1986). Networks: Between markets and hierarchies. Strategic
Management Journal, 7, 37-51.
Tully, S. (1993). The modular corporation. Fortune, 8 ,106-115.
Tushman, M. L., & O’Reilly, C. A. (1997). Winning through innovation: A practi
cal guide to leading organizational change and renewal. Boston, MA:
Harvard Business School Press.
Ulrich, D., & Lake, D. (1990). Organizational capability: Competing from the in
side out. NewYork: John Wiley & Sons.
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The para
dox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 4, 35-67.
Veliyath, R., & Srinivasant, T. (1995). Gestalt approaches to assessing strategic
coalignment: A conceptual integration. British Journal o f Management, 6,
205-219.
VonHippeL,E. (1988). The sources o f innovation. NewYork: Oxford University
Press.
Waddock, A. (1989). Understanding social partnerships: An evolutionary model of
partnership organizations. Adm inistration and Society, 21, 78-100.
Wartick, S. L., & Mahon, J. F. (1994). Toward a substantive definition of the cor
porate issue construct: A review and synthesis of the literature. Business &
Society, 7(33), 293-311.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
144
Weber, M. (1978). Economy and society: An outline o f interpretive sociology.
Berkeley, CA: University o f California Press.
Wheatley, M. (1992). Leadership and the New Science. San Francisco, CA:
Berrett-Kohler Publishers.
Wiig, K. M. (2000). Application o f knowledge management public administration.
Paper presented at International Symposium: Building Policy Coherence,
Taipei, Taiwan.
Williams, T. (1998). Interorganizational networks: Strategic cooperation in differ
ent network types. Academy o f Management Proceedings, BPS, A1-A15.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
145
APPENDICES
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
APPENDIX A
ANNUAL PROLIFERATION OF COMMITTEES IN THE
TAIPEI CITY GOVERNMENT (1968-20003)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission o f th e copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Annual Proliferation of Committees In The Taipei City Government (1968-2000.3)
10
The Amount
of Committee
Year
- j
148
APPENDIX B
LEAD AGENCIES OF AD HOC TASK FORCES,
TCG AND MAIN TASKS
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
149
Lead Agencies of ad hoc Task Forces, TCG and Main Tasks
Coordinating
Agency
# of
Committee Main Tasks
Bureau of
Public Works
14*
Procurement auditing, handicap facilities, route
planning, monitoring public work, pipage construc
tion, underpass safety, park planning, architect dis
cipline, dispute resolution, etc
Bureau of
Transportation
9
Traffic safety, city bus lines planning, supervision
of the quality of city bus operation, promoting taxi
interest, arbitrating embroilment between bus
owner and employee, etc.
Bureau of
Finance
7
Economic development, real estate appraisal, finan
cial crisis management, municipal asset manage
ment, evaluating privatization of city-owned enter
prises, etc.
Bureau of
Social Affairs
7
Enhancing communities development, promoting
women interest, preventing sexual attack, prevent
ing family violence, enhancing social welfare, pro
tecting handicap and mental retardation, etc.
Bureau of
Education
5
Monitoring the operation of Children Museum of
Traffic, evaluation and employment of disabled stu
dents, planning of the construction of Youth Center,
etc.
Bureau of
Environmental
Protection
4
Appraising radiation, reviewing environmental im
pact evaluation, reconciling pollution disputes, etc.
Bureau of
Health
4
Supervising Wan-Fan Hospital, resolving medical
disputes, emergent medical consulting, smoking
prevention, etc.
Bureau of
Reconstruction
4
Facilitating the small and middle business, nature
ecology reservation, accomplishing Green Policy,
etc.
Other
Agencies
29
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
150
APPENDIX C
RESULTS OF INVESTIGATION ON HORIZONTAL
COORDINATION IN THE TAIPEI CITY
GOVERNMENT (1996.7-1997.3)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Results o f Investigation o n Horizontal Coordination i n th e Taipei C ity Government 1996.7-1997.3
151
INpartnww o f Budprt.
Accounting m l Stnashci
1 * 3
3
3/112
0.03
Tbipci Fctttui Reservoir
Admmiatratian
- ©
100
Zll/I
Rules and Regulations
Commission
t o o
t o o
III It
Department of Personnel
- ©
I/I 12
0.01
Dspartn mil of Information
8.
2/112
0.02
CATEGORY OF
ADMINISTRATIVE
DISTRICT OFFICES
1 Admmismtive District offices
m pi
13/112
0.12
CATEGORY OF WATER
DEPARTMENT
Tsipei Water Department-
Engineering Carps
r-
8
7/112
0.06
CATEGORY OF PUBLIC
HOUSING
Department oT Public Housing
O D ©
S/112
0.07
CATEGORY OF LAND
ADMINISTRATION
Department of Land
AdministratioR
Pi ©
z! 2
CATEGORY OF HEALTH
AND HYGIENE
Bureau o f Health
r-
8
^ ©
Bureau of Environmental
Protection
©
s
17/112
0.16
CATEGORY OF FIRE
DEPARTMENT
Taipei Fire Depanment
r»
8
7/112
0.06
CATEGORY OF LABOUR
AFFAIRS
Buitau of Labour Aflaiis
m s
8/112
0.07
CATEGORY OF SOCIAL
AFFAIRS
Bureau o f Education
o
* C \
o
Bureau of Social Aflairs
=
©
17/112
0.13
CATEGORY OF
TRANSPORTATION
Department of Rapid Transit
System
tn
Bureau o f Tranapomtian
S *'1
CATEGORY OF PUBLIC
WORKS
Bureau of Public Works
X 3
34/112
o.a
CATEGORY OF
RECONSTRUCTION
Urban Planning Cammissiar
- q
610
ZII/IZ
Bureau o f Urban Development
r*
Buicm o f RecnMtmctisn
* * >
©
CATEGORY OF FINANCE
Bureau of Finance
m s
I/I 12
0.07
1 ______
CATEGORY OF CIVIL
AFFAIRS
Bureau of Civil Affairs
. ^
o
V I12
0 j 03
□
BUREAU CASE TOTAL CASE
RATIO
POLICY
CATEGORY
RATIO
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
152
APPENDIX D
152 CASES ON MULTIAGENCIES PARTNERSHIPS
IN TAIPEI CITY GOVERNMENT
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
153
152 Cases on Multiagencies Partnership in Taipei City Government
Nature of Cases # of Case
Public Works 33
Administrative District Offices 20
Reconstruction 15
Transportation 14
Police 1
Health and Hygiene 12
Social Affairs 12
Civil Affairs 7
Fire Department 6
Public Housing 4
Commission to Examine Petitions and Appeals 3
Land Administration 3
Labor Affairs 2
Others
.. . ,
13
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
154
APPENDIX E
SELECTIVE CASES OF TCG MULTIAGENCY PARTNERSHIP
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
155
Selective Cases o f TCG Multiagency Partnership
# Cases Time Period
1 Crackdown on illegal soil and garbage dumping in
Nankang Economy and Trade Zone
1993-2000
2 Dismantlement of Lausong primary school
3 Dismantlement of Longman primary schools
4 Comprehensive water resource program for Tamshui River
Basin
5 Nankang Economy and Trade Zone development 1998-2002
6 Dismantlement of unfit public construction
7 Garbage collection fee with accompanying bag 1999-2000
8 National Science □ Technology Program for Hazards
Mitigation in Taipei City
1999-2004
9 Cable TV cable-connection management 1998-2000
10 The calamities garden program in Taipei City
11 Peitou hot spring museum management 1998-1999
12 Medical effluent incinerator construction work 1999-2000
13 Emergency assistance system for live-alone elders 1999-
14 Press release & communication between Taipei City Hall
and Administrative District Offices
15 Regional redevelopment program 1996-
16 Wan-Hua Administrative District Office construction 1998-2002
17 Crackdown on illegal soil and garbage dumping in in
dustrial road
18 Relief program for 921 Chi-Chi Earthquake victims 1999-
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
156
# Cases Time Period
19 Mental-illness citizen employment and housing services 1999.1-
20 Computerized business registration application
21 Crackdown on illegal ads
22 Wan-Hua #12 Park Construction 1999.01-
91.12
23 Function integration of elder, women, and social welfare
service centers
24 Ditched and stray dogs treatment 1999-2002.
25 Automatic administration and service 1999-2002
26 Crackdown on gun, drug, prostitute, and gang
27 Ditched and abandoned cars disposal
28 Enhancing back yards beautification accommodating sewer
construction
2000.1-
29 Wen-Shan District Development 1998-2000
30 Enhancing of Na-Hu District #58 park 1998— 1999
31 Protection of victims from family violence 1999-2000
32 IC Card token promotion for Rapid Transit System
33 Management of municipal properties and assets
34 Co-pipe construction accommodating MRTS's Shin-Yi
Line
1999-
35 The program for protecting the youth from breaking law 1997-
36 Maintaining roads with width under 8 meters 1999-
37 River-side parks management 1997-1999
38 Enhancing of Chung Shan 1 park construction 1998-2000
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
157
APPENDIX F
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE SURVEY ON
TCG’S MULTIAGENCY PARTNERSHIP
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
158
Questionnaire for the Survey on TCG’s Multiagency Partnership
Dear Friends at Taipei City Government:
I’m writing this letter to ask for your support and cooperation in a study on the
operations of multiagency partnerships in Taipei City Government. Your par
ticipation will help us better appreciate cross-boundary management issues. It is
hoped that, through our mutual collaboration, suggestions may be proposed to
address governance problems.
Please take a few minutes to answer the survey questions based on your own
work experience and understanding. Meantime, please be assured that your re
sponses will be used as in aggregate data without your personal identity being
quoted on an individual basis. Again, thank you very much for your attention
and assistance.
Sincerely yours,
Jong H. Huang
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
159
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
N o Opinion
6 5 4 3 2 1
1. Multiagency partnerships function well currently
inTCG.
6 5 4 3 2 1
2. Multiagency partnerships benefit participating
members.
6 5 4 3 2 1
3. Partner agencies are able to negotiate their own
benefits.
6 5 4 3 2 1
4. The driving force for multiagency partnership
comes largely from the agency executive's
command.
6 5 4 3 2 I
5. Support for multiagency partnerships comes
from substantial rewards.
6 5 4 3 2 1
6. The incentive for the participating members
comes from identification with the government.
6 5 4 3 2 1
7. I know the membership when I join in the
partnerships.
6 5 4 3 2 1
8. There exists a good relationship among
participating members.
6 5 4 3 2 1
9. TCG’s member agencies in multiagency
partnerships enjoy the power to make decision.
6 5 4 3 2 1
10. There exists the phenomenon of overlapping
responsibility among the participating agencies
in multiagency partnerships.
6 5 4 3 2 1
11. There exists the phenomenon of an unclear,
ambiguous specification of tasks in multiagency
partnerships.
6 5 4 3 2 1
12. Multiagency partners can support each other
with manpower.
6 5 4 3 2 1
13. Multiagency partners can share material
resources with each other.
6 5 4 3 2 1
14. Multiagency partners can financially support
each other.
6 5 4 3 2 1
15. Multiagency partnerships help integrate
resources among participating members.
6 5 4 3 2 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
160
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
N o Opinion
16. Multiagency partners in TCG enjoy sharing
information and expertise.
6 5 4 3 2 1
17. Multiagency partnerships in TCG can meet the
need for information sharing.
6 5 4 3 2 1
18. Multiagency partnerships in TCG help improve
the efficiency of the collective resources.
6 5 4 3 2 1
19. Multiagency partnerships in TCG help reduce
the redundancy and waste of resources.
6 5 4 3 2 1
20. Multiagency partnerships enable agencies to
complement each other in providing a fuller
range of service.
6 5 4 3 2 1
21. Multiagency partnerships help cultivate an
innovative spirit.
6 5 4 3 2 1
22. Multiagency partnerships help promote
program efficiency.
6 5 4 3 2 1
23. Multiagency partnerships help solve thorny
wicked issues.
6 5 4 3 2 1
24. Multiagency partnerships help develop a
trusting and cooperative relationship between
turfconscious agencies.
6 5 4 3 2 1
25. Multiagency partnerships help respond well to
legal change.
6 5 4 3 2 1
26. Multiagency partnerships help respond well to
social change.
6 5 4 3 2 1
27. Multiagency partnerships help respond well to
economic change.
6 5 4 3 2 1
28. Multiagency partnerships help respond well to
political change.
6 5 4 3 2 1
29. TCG’s multiagency partnerships have set clear
objectives for the tasks to be accomplished.
6 5 4 3 2 1
30. The partner agencies in TCG possess precisely
the needed skills or correct means for task
accomplishment.
6 5 4 3 2 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
161
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
N o Opinion
31. Members of TCG’s multiagency partnership
have high consensus on collaboration culture.
6 5 4 3 2 1
32. Participating agencies hold an aggressive
attitude toward inter-agency coordination and
collaboration.
6 5 4 3 2 1
33. There is a trust relationship member agencies
hold toward each other.
6 5 4 3 2 1
34. TCG workers are fully capable of engaging in
multiagency partnership.
6 5 4 3 2 1
35. The memberships affect the effectiveness of
multiagency partnership.
6 5 4 3 2 1
36. Multiagency partnership participants have
sufficient skills.
6 5 4 3 2 1
37. Partners in TCG’s cross-organizational
collaboration would consider the partnership a
top priority.
6 5 4 3 2 1
38. Members of TCG’s multiagency partnerships
are capable of strengthening willingness and
capacity for more learning.
6 5 4 3 2 1
39. TCG’s multiagency partnerships have the City
Council’s support
6 5 4 3 2 1
40. TCG’s multiagency partnerships have the
superior’s support.
6 5 4 3 2 1
41. TCG’s multiagency partnerships have the
related, concerned groups’ support.
6 5 4 3 2 1
42. Agents and staffs participating in multiagency
partnerships receive recognition and
appreciation.
6 5 4 3 2 1
43. TGC’s multiagency partnerships often
encounter difficulties.
6 5 4 3 2 1
44. Multiagency participants can soon find
solutions when encountering difficulties.
6 5 4 3 2 1
45.1 am aware of what strategies to take when
encountering difficulties in cross-
organizational partnership.
6 5 4 3 2 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
162
Strongly
Agree
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Strongly
Disagree
N o Opinion
46.1 think the joint meeting is an effective type of
multiagency partnership in TCG.
6 5 4 3 2 1
47.1 think the task force is an effective type of
multiagency partnership in TCG.
6 5 4 3 2 1
48.1 think the ad hoc committee is an effective
type of multiagency partnership in TCG.
6 5 4 3 2 1
49. What is the most effective type of multiagency partnership? Please list
the choice given (i.e., 1. The joint meeting, 2. Task force, 3. Ad hoc
committee) in order of the effectiveness:__________
50. What are the other types of multiagency partnerships that you consider
effective? _____________ __________________
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
163
Personal Information
A. Gender: □ M □ F
B. Age: ___________
C. Nature of Work:__________
D. Position Level:___________
E. Are you an executive? □ Yes a No
F. Length of service in the government: years
G. Education level:
□ Below a High school a College
□ Masters □ Doctoral degree
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
164
APPENDIX G
QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MANAGEMENT COMPETENCY SURVEY
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
165
Questionnaire for Management Competency Survey
Dear Friends at Taipei City Government:
You are sincerely invited to take part in a meaningful study on cross-boundary
partnerships in Taipei City Government. All you need to do is to take a few
minutes answering the survey questions enclosed here but your support will
make a great contribution to our understanding about management skills and
abilities. Please note that your answers will be used only aggregately and no in
dividual responses cited and used. Your attention and participation are much ap
preciated.
Sincerely yours,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
166
Highly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Highly
Disagree
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
1.1 continually seek feedback on my
performance.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2 .1 am an intensely motivated person. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
3 .1 know how to use basic planning tools in
managing projects.
7 6 5 4 3
2 1
4 .1 know how to gather data from potential, as
well as current customers.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
5 .1 have a clear image of who I am. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
6 .1 am skilled in team building techniques. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
7. My own personal coping strategies help me
to adapt to change.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
8 .1 know how to build personal power through
the involvement of others.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
9. When I have more than one goal I set clear
priorities.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
10.1 am skilled at motivating other people. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
11. In organizing, I understand the division of
labor principle.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
12.1 can diagnose process problems in an
organizational unit.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
13. In communicating, I am very sensitive to
feeling.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
14.1 know when to use participative decision
making.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
15.1 think of myself as a creative person. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
16. In negotiating, I know howto explore win-
win outcomes.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
17.1 know howto give people both
responsibility and authority.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
18.1 always try to begin my day with a personal
planning session.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
19.1 can explain the concept of a cross
functional team.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
167
Highly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Highly
Disagree
20.1 know bow to monitor the degree of value
provided to the customer.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
21.1 am able to coach others effectively. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
22.1 know how to create win-win situations in
conflicts.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
23.1 can accurately assess the forces for and
against change in a given situation.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
24. When preparing an oral presentation, I
consider the purpose, the audience, and
available resources.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2 5 .1 know how to help members of a cross
function team work together effectively.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
26.1 have a passionate commitment to the
things I do.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
27 .1 can divide components of a project so they
can be measured in terms of time and cost.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
2 8.1 try to find out how decisions affect others
around me.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
29.1 have a clear set of values. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
30.1 can turn a collection of individuals into a
team.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
31. In dealing with changes that are imposed on
the organization, 1 think about how
employees will react.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
32.1 know how to employ formal authority in
an effective way.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
33.1 always have a clear set of objectives. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
34.1 can create high performance expectations
in others.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
35.1 know how to consider the organization’s
environment in creating an organizational
design.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
36.1 understand the principles of reengineering. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
37. In conversations, I put people at ease. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
38.1 know how to employ participative
decision making techniques.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
168
H ighly Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Highly
Disagree
39.1 always try to look at old problems in new
ways.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
40. In negotiating, I know bow to base the result
on an objective standard.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
41.1 feel comfortable with the concept of
delegation.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
42.1 always end the day with the feeling that I
have accomplished at least one significant
task.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
43.1 can design a self-managed work team. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
44.1 know how to construct a performance
monitoring matrix.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
45.1 feel comfortable acting as an advisor to
people.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
46.1 can manage tensions and get people to
relax during conflict.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
47.1 am able to deal effectively with forces of
resistance when managing change.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
48.1 am an effective public speaker. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
49.1 can influence people through rational
persuasion.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
50.1 am comfortable living with change. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
51.1 know how to turn a work group into a
smooth functioning team.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
52.1 am very honest with myself. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
53.1 seek out divergent opinions on how my
performance is seen by others.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
54.1 can produce a critical path diagram. 7 6 5 4 3 2
55.1 love to feel challenged by the tasks I have
to do.
7 6 5 4 3 2
56.1 know how to redesign a job based on
consideration of the task and the employee’s
needs.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
57. Each day I have a well defined plan. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
169
Highly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Highly
Disagree
58.1 often inspire people to do more then they
are expected to do.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
59.1 can design a matrix organization. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
60.1 know how to find and eliminated
unnecessary activities in an unit.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
61. During a conversation, I am in touch with
the other’s reactions.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
62.1 know which situations are inappropriate
for participative decision making.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
63.1 know the advantages and disadvantages of
job enlargement.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
64.1 know how to effectively acknowledge the
existence of a conflict.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
65. Delegating work frees up times to do more
important thing
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
66.1 know how to best involve people in
designing organizational changes.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
67.1 am able to call on different conflict
management approaches, depending on the
situation.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
68.1 am able to mentor people, and help them
row and develop.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
69.1 know how to gain profound knowledge of
customer needs.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
70.1 can list the challenges that are faced by
cross-functional teams.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
71.1 always do the most important parts of my
job during the time of day when I perform
the best.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
72.1 am skilled at delegation. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
73.1 know how to use reward to effectively
influence others.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
74.1 adjust well to changing conditions. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
75.1 frequently encourage team members to
take on different tasks and maintenance
roles in order to improve the team’s
effectiveness.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
170
Highly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Highly
Disagree
76.1 recognize and work on my inconsistencies
and hypocrisies.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
77.1 encourage people to give me negative, as
well as positive, feedback on my
performance.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
78.1 know how to do resource leveling for
project management.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
79.1 am driven by a need for continuous
improvement in what I do.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
80.1 know how to create a vision for my
organization.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
81. In negotiating, I know how to keep the
discussion issue-oriented.
7 6 5 4 3 2
1
82.1 like to explore new ideas. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
83.1 feel comfortable involving people in group
decisions.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
84.1 am very sensitive to nonverbal messages
in a conversation.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
85.1 am able to implement a process
improvement plan.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
86.1 understand the advantages of organizing
by divisional form.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
87.1 am skilled in getting the best out of
people.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
88.1 always seek clear feedback about how I
am doing.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
89.1 understand and know how to apply the
principles o f effective delegation.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
90. In making an oral presentation, I know how
to get people's attention.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
91.1 am skilled at facilitating organizational
change.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
92.1 know how to keep a conflict situation
moving towards a productive conclusion.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
171
Highly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - i
Highly
Disagree
93.1 am able to advise subordinates on
important matters relating to their growth
and development.
7 6 5 4 3
2
1
94.1 know how to monitor trends that will
help me anticipate what customers want.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
95.1 can list the principles of managing a
cross-functional team.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
96.1 know how to manage stress. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
97.1 can implement the concept of job
rotation.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
98.1 am an unusually hard worker. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
99.1 know how to determine the advantages
and disadvantages of difference
organization designs.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
100.1 have a systematic process for getting
honest evaluations on my performance.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
101.1 work hard at being honest and sincere. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
102.1 know how to run a meeting in which
everyone feels involved and influential in
the decisions that are made.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
103.1 know how to use the organizational
culture to help employees adapt to change.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
104.1 am able to influence others through
persuasion.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
105.1 always establish a specific set of
challenging goals
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
106.1 can get others to excel in their work. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
107.1 know how to locate the most crucial
issues in a workflow problem.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
108.1 effectively use empathy and reflective
listening.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
109.1 try to treat any new problem as an
opportunity.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
110.1 am very relaxed when I have to speak to
a group of people.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
111.1 often come up with useful innovations. 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
172
Highly
Agree
Somewhat
Agree
Neutral
Disagree
Somewhat
Disagree
Highly
Disagree
112.1 regularly use stress management
techniques.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
113.1 know how to analyze the dynamics of an
on-going organizational change process.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
114.1 can design a job using the concept of job
enrichment.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
115.1 can produce a Gantt chart 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
116.1 know how to stimulate conflict in a
meeting in order to ensure that different
points of view are head.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
117.1 can specify the advantages of a cross
functional team.
7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Personal Information
A. Gender: □ M □ F
B. Age:
C. Nature of Work:
D. Position Level:
E. Are you an executive? □ Yes
F. Length of service in the government:
G. Education level:
_years
□ Below a High school a College
□ Masters □ Doctoral degree
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
173
APPENDIX H
RESPONDENTS BACKGROUND FOR THE SURVEY
ON TCG’S MULTIAGENCY PARTNERSHIP
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
174
Respondents Background for the Survey on TCG’s Multiagency Partnership
Gender Number
Male 95
Female 21
Age Number
21-30 2
31-40 36
41-50 63
51-60 12
Above 60 1
* 2 persons having no answer
Nature of Task Number
Public Works 49
Nonpublic Works 62
Position Level Number
6-grade 1
7-grade 10
8-grade 32
9-grade 58
10-grade 10
11-grade 1
Executive/
Nonexecutive
Number
Executive 89
Nonexecutive 27
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
175
Tenure Number
0-5 Year 4
6-10 Year 16
11-15 Year 28
16-20 Year 41
21-25 Year 16
Over 25 Year 9
* 2 persons having no answer
Education Number
High School 3
College 72
Master 39
Doctorate 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
176
APPENDIX I
RECORDS OF A SURVEY ON THE TAIPEI CITY GOVERNMENT’S
MULTIAGENCY PARTNERSHIPS THROUGH THE NOMINAL
GROUP TECHNIQUES
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
177
Records of a Survey on the Taipei City Government’s Multiagency Partnerships
Through the Nominal Group Techniques
Survey Method: The Nominal Group Technique
Date: September 7, 2000.
Pbce: Training Center, Bank of Taiwan (Peitou, Taipei).
Procedure:
*Mr. A and Mr. B, who preside over two of the group discussions, intro
duce to the participating officials the purpose and procedure of the survey. (Time: 3
minutes)
1. Participants are divided into six groups, with five people in each
group and one of them serving as the leader.
2. The leader further explains the procedure of the survey and in
vites questions from his or her group members before proceeding to distribute to
each member a strip of paper. (Time: 3 minutes)
3. The leader brings forth the first question and asks every member to
write down on the paper— the one opinion he/she holds dearest for the question.
(Time: 2 minutes)
4. All members take turns explaining their opinions while the leader
takes note of them. Further discussion is withheld until all their opinions are voiced
and recorded down. (Time: 5 minutes).
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
178
5. Group members start to discuss and evaluate the merits of all the
opinions, with the leader taking note of the keywords used. (Time: 10 minutes).
6. Based on their independent perception and assessment, all group
members assign a numeric designation (1-5) to all the opinions in order of signifi
cance, with “I” for the most valuable opinion and “5” for the least valued one.
(Time: 1 minute)
7. All group members read out the opinions (i.e., the first one on their
respective list) and the group leader records them down on a sheet of paper before
turning it to one research assistant for weighted calculation. Repeat steps 3 through
7 to process with the remaining four questions. (Time: 1 minute).
8. Members will have a break after all the opinions are discussed and
duly recorded. Then all the members of the six groups gather for a joint discussion
led by a pre-designated researcher. (Time: 1 minute). (The top opinions of the six
groups for the first question are copied down on a white board or paper and ready for
a final vote.)
9. All participants discuss and assess these opinions while the leader
duly takes note. (Time: 10 minutes)
10. All the members hold a hand-vote on the opinions, so the one receiv
ing the greatest amount of votes becomes the most important choice. (Time: 2 min
utes). Then, steps 8 to 10 are repeated for the other four questions.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
179
Questions Regarding Multiagency Partnership (As You See It Practiced in the
Taipei Government)
1. Given the situations in which applicable laws and regulations govern
ing the jurisdiction and responsibilities are not clear, how may you carry out the
multiagency partnership?
2. When conducting a multiagency partnership, how can the involved
agencies support each other in terms of financial resources and program expendi
tures?
3. Which of the following options is the most effective form of multi
agency partnership: the task force; joint meetings; special committees, a so
cial/human network; others (please specify)
4. How can the agencies, departments and sections engaged in a multi
agency partnership link up and exchange information effectively?
5. In a multiagency partnership, what can we do to eradicate the prob
lems of task evasion and responsibility shifting?
Records and On-the-Spot Shorthand Notes: How the Most
Superior Opinions Came About
Through the nominal group technique, this survey seeks to explore and ana
lyze the opinions Taipei City Government’s senior executives hold on questions re
lated to multiagency partnerships. With all participants’ full support, the survey has
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
been carried out smoothly. The following is a description of the activity and their
opinions in response to the five questions raised and listed out above.
1. When related laws and regulations are not clear in prescribing the
jurisdiction and responsibilities, how may a multiagency partnership be carried out?
During the discussion, most members tend to believe that "holding a meet
ing" is the most basic form appropriate for the solution of the question. Only one
suggests the legal committee should be in charge of clarifying the opposing view
points and any legal disputes at issue. But they have different opinions about the
lead agency and the proper format of the meeting. In their opinion, the one to spon
sor or initiate the meeting could be either a ranking executive, a senior official, an
official with statutory power, the agency that initially accepts and attends to the case,
or the unit leading the multiagency partnership. The formats of the meeting thus
proposed include a coordination meeting, a task force, or an ad hoc committee.
All the members of the six groups, after a respective group discussion, dis
cuss and vote on the most superior opinions, leading to a consensus as follows. As
suggested in the following table, “holding a meeting presided over by a person with
authority,” “face-to-face talks” and “having a senior executive making decisions,”
are considered most effective means of advancing inter-agency collaboration when
there is legal ambiguity in the way.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
181
Opinions Votes
People with power organize meetings 8
Face-to-face consultation & coordination 7
Superior coordinates & makes decisions 7
Lead agency organizes coordination meetings 4
Leave it to superior for resolution 3
2. How can the agencies in a multiagency partnership support each other
in terms of financial resources and program expenditures?
Most participating officials show a regular thinking pattern of “Under what
certain circumstances, are certain solutions appropriate?” As a result of their being
pragmatic, the derived opinions are varied, depending on the exact situations and
probable constraints. Opinions proposed during group discussions about the financ
ing of joint projects include: (a) the financial burden should be divided based on the
proportion of expected gains by each participating agency or according to the role
and the amount of work assigned to the departments; (b) the financial means be de
cided by a higher authority or they be integrated in each agency's regular budgeting
process; (c) loosen up the legal restrains binding the budget execution; the financial
burden be equally shared by agencies having an interest; (d) the joint projects be
financed out of the integrated, unitary budget; (e) establish a mechanism with which
all agencies in a partnership gain benefits; employ the reserved fund; (f) the execu
tive approves the budget with prior consent from the treasurer; and (g) clarify the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
182
roles the leading and assisting agencies should play and the financial responsibilities
they should shoulder accordingly. A remarkable anecdote during the discussion is
that one of the six groups reached unanimously the consensus that the most appro
priate approach is “understand the budgetary categories applicable to the case at
hand and secure authorization and approval for budget spending.” Not surprisingly,
this approach won a majority support, becoming the most superior opinion, as the
officials convened soon after for the grand discussion (see the table below).
In summary, most participants also support the idea of dividing the tasks in a
fair manner and, accordingly, sharing the financial resources budgeted for the joint
tasks. However, the suggestion of “integrating a unitary budget line,” though ini
tially popular and appealing, was not accepted among the options to be voted on
since this approach cannot be adopted once a partnership gets started.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
183
Opinions Votes
Understand budget items and seek authorized
supportive use
10
Divide tasks foirly with budget sharing among
partnering agencies
9
Distinguish the lead agency from the assisting ones
and assign authority and responsibility
5
Partnering agencies individually seek financial
resources
3
To be financed by the office commanding the
participating agencies
1
Use a unitary budget line and make appropriations N/A
3. Which of the following options is the most effective form of
multiagency partnership: the task force: joint meetings: special committees, a
social/human network: others (please specify)?
The surveyed officials show a remarkable agreement in proposing solutions
to this question. Specifically, “establishing a social network” and “having a joint
meeting” are respectively selected by two groups to be the most effective form for
promoting interagency partnership. Similarly, the other three groups are not for
apart in terms of group consensus: they suggest that a task force and an ad hoc com
mittee are ideal for conducting multiagency partnership effort. No one has specified
other forms beyond those suggested by the survey.
During the joint discussion, a number of participants are surprised to know
other people have opinions so different from their own. It is interesting to note,
however, they try to elaborate on those varied options with equal enthusiasm and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
184
support The voting results, as expected, demonstrate the high consensus among the
members, for it is the task force that is favored by three groups as the most effective
way to promote inter-agency collaboration.
Throughout the heated discussion, some insights are shared and worthy of at
tention. First, is social networking an ideal option? The dissenters claim this ap
proach may encourage illegal private deals at the cost of greater public interest. On
the contrary, its supporters maintain that an effective human network can facilitate
task completion in a timely and effective manner. While networking takes time to
establish, it can be extremely useful when put to good use, the current boot camp
being a good case n point. Secondly, how effective can a joint meeting be? To be
effective, a joint meeting must be attended by executive officers who have authority
and power to make binding decisions. Thirdly, for a task force to be successful, its
features of being temporary and substantial are to be maintained.
Opinion Vote
Task Force 12
Social Networks 6
Joint Meeting 6
Ad hoc Committee 3
4. How can the agencies, departments and sections engaged in a multi-
agency partnership link up and exchange information effectively?
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
185
Numerous ideas and suggestions have popped up in response to this practical
question. They range widely from a friendship association, a boot camp, regular cof
fee sessions, Web connections, strengthening program assessments and reporting
procedures, establishing social, human networks, social get-togethers on a regular
basis, information sharing among agencies in a partnership, personnel exchange, as
serting and confirming partnership, business talks, higher level coordination, regular
face-to-face contacts, regular and irregular get-togethers, regular joint meetings,
sharing internet resources, frequent and constructive dialogues among staff at the
same level, and explicitly request agencies to inform partners and other relevant
agencies.
Naturally, during the joint discussion, voices are raised and thoughtful de
bates conducted, with clapping and laughing heard all the time, all the way. On top
of the most superior opinions is “establish a social network” among partnering staff,
a result not very congruent with the dominant opinion in the previous discussions,
nonetheless.
Opinions Votes
Social Networks 10
Regular or irregular get-gathers 9
Internal memos specifying advance notice
requirement
4
Reaffirming partnerships 2
Social get-togethers initiated by lead agencies 2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
186
5. In a multiagency partnership, what can be done to eradicate the prob
lems of task avoidance and responsibility evasion?
In small group discussions, various opinions are heard, including clarifying
jurisdiction and areas of responsibility, establishing social relations, setting up a task
force, authorizing the task force leader to evaluate staff performance, putting in place
the third-party evaluator and a merit-based rewarding system, high-level decisions
on task and duty assignments, making transparent the power and duties as well as
punishments and rewards applicable to certain performance and behaviors, establish
ing a common vision, integrating and then prioritizing goals and tasks, applying rea
son in doing analyses while resorting to the human nature in coordination and mak
ing decisions according to the law, clear divisions of powers and duties, building
team spirits by sharing weal or woe alike, establishing proper units in charge of
supervision and evaluation, making task assignments unambiguously clear while
enforcing regular follow-up assessments. As critical as the question is, different
opinions invariably invite further questioning and explaining, turning the joint dis
cussion an exciting session.
Some interesting explanations are offered in support o f opinions they hold
dear. Some skeptics suspect how feasible it is to establish a visionary public agency,
given the interests and pressure behind each and every public policy, not to mention
the thorny, sticky ones. Meantime, the opinion of adopting a bottom-up approach in
deciding administrative jurisdiction and responsibilities is considered by many to be
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
187
naive for it ignores the truth that not all public workers are angels. No legal means
are sufficient to stop all people from trying every possible way to evade responsibili
ties due to them. Yet, despite the pessimism pervading the discussion, most partici
pants of the survey agree explicit legal regulations and a clearer division of labor
will help somehow to reduce, if not eradicate, the problems of task avoidance and
responsibility evasion.
Opinions Votes
Specify in explicit language task assignments and
clarify power and duties
9
Nurture a common vision 6
Enforce regular follow-up assessments 5
Enhance vertical and horizontal communication with
a fair delivery of rewards and punishments
4
Adopt a bottom-up, coordinative approach toward
dividing areas of responsibility
2
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
188
APPENDIX J
TRANSCRIPTIONS OF AN INTERVIEW ON THE PROGRAM OF
REMOVING CABLE-TV LINES IN TAIPEI
AND OTHER RELEVANT ISSUES
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
189
Transcriptions of an Interview on the Program of
Removing cable-TV Lines in Taipei
and Other Relevant Issues
Interviewee: 1 . Mr. C, Section Chief Department of Information.
2. Ms. H, Supervisor, Department of Information.
Date: August 2, 2000.
Place: Office, Department of Information, TCG.
Background: The Department of Information was the first TCG agency to con
cern itself with the problems of littered TV cable. Both Mr. C and Ms. H are
charged with the responsibility of ensuring a successful removal process. As the na
ture of the case dictates, they need to be in constant contact with people in the cable-
TV business, coordinate other related agencies, and translate public opinions to pub
lic management decisions. Probably because of some innovative management
strategies and matching efforts from the Department of Information, the case has
been regarded as a successful model for interagency collaboration.
Q l. How would you appraise the work concerning the removal and
management of the TV cable lines within the jurisdiction of the Taipei City
Government?
What we have been doing to remove the old and useless cable lines in Taipei
City is by spot checks. Now we have somehow gotten rid of the old and useless ca
ble lines in Da'an, Wenshan, and Nangang areas. In the meantime, the newly but
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
190
illegally laid cable lines along sewers and wire poles are being taken care of by rele
vant government agencies. I don’t foresee any major problems with that. However,
the real trouble lies in how we deal with the cable lines suspending in the air and on
the walls. Article 6 of the Cable TV Law specifies that laying suspended cable lines
is a private action not subjection to prosecution. So should a dispute arise, the In
formation Office at best can only intervene to bridge the gap and promote mutual
understanding between the two disputing parties. If the citizens whose rights are en
croached by the cable company are not satisfied with the meditation results, they
may resort to legal means. This situation is really a pain in the neck for us. As the
law does not clearly specify the responsible agency, none is willing to claim respon
sibility and take action accordingly.
Since the Information Office is in charge of administering cable TV opera
tions and related affairs, most people take it for granted that cable lines are naturally
part of our business. Though quite willing to take care of the matter, we face many
difficulties. As civil servants, we should discharge duties according to what the law
prescribes. In the case of removing the suspended TV cables, however, our hands
are tied unless the central government revises the Cable TV Law and grants power to
the local government to work out relevant regulations. For now, the Information Of
fice can only opt to continue its current role as a coordinator for conflicting interests.
In other words, except for the problems caused by the new cable lines, we are
satisfied with the progress and results. Basically, all concerned government agencies
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
191
have faithfully executed the work within their respective jurisdiction. Only when it
comes to the problem of removing the suspended cable lines, do we feel frustrated.
Q2. In your opinion, which government agencies should be involved in the
cable line issue? How do they interact with each other? How do they share de
cision-making power in their interactions?
Thank you for providing me the organizational chart for a quick reference. I
think both the Rapid Transit Company, which has contributed a portion of the cable
lines in the city landscape, and the Construction Bureau should be involved in solv
ing problems for which they are partially responsible. Isn't it amazing that so many
agencies have a stake in this troublesome, thorny issue? As for our interactions, it is
usually the case that we contact each other by telephone or memo. Whenever neces
sary, we invite all relevant agencies to make a joint spot inspection, and discuss
ways to solve a concrete issue on the spot, such as cutting or removing illegal cable
lines. Speaking of decision-making power, all of us are merely staff assigned to do
implementation. Of course, we may report and submit suggestions that may reach
the executives at the decision leveL
Q3. As far as you know, what are the major incentives for promoting this
project?
Undeniably, it is due to the personal request and attention from Director Jin
of our Information Office, who personally sees to it that we implement the project.
Another pressure comes from the citizens’ mounting concern about the untidy city
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
192
landscape. Today we are lucky for not having had too many ringing phones inter
rupt our interview. During any ordinary workday, we keep receiving calls from citi
zens complaining about the cables that are in their way. Moreover, other agencies
and departments never stop referring to us cases with a similar nature, even if the
jurisdiction is yet to be determined. In fact, we have set up a complaint telephone
available to citizens. It is not uncommon that we need to deal with as many as 80
cases a month. Together all these have forced us to promote and execute the project
faithfully. As for negative incentives such as the evaluation and sanctions by the
Department of Research & Evaluation, I don’t feel pressured at all. Deep inside, we
don’t consider them effective incentives either. It will only achieve negative results
when our partnering agencies work hard just because of the promise of certain pres
sures and sanctions. As I see it, a passive, negative cycle will become established
once you are in the habit of resorting to punitive means in asking for satisfactory
performance. The effects of fear and punishment tend to decrease quickly. In other
words, other kinds of incentives may work better.
Q4. In executing this project, do you tend to make good use of expertise and
professional knowledge your partnering agencies may contribute? Specifically,
to what degree can you share human, material, and financial resources?
All agencies involved in this project have provided relevant data and knowl
edge to the lead agency, the Information Office, while those cable companies have
helped us cut and remove the old and useless cable lines. But basically, each agency
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
193
is more concerned about exercising its own functions and power. Information shar
ing among all agencies is conducted on a regular basis. However, it is hardly the
case that we share resources other than information. So we still have a long way to
go before a real integration of human, material and financial resources. Human
shortage is nearly a universal concern. For example, in our section we only have a
couple of people administering the cable removal project. We need more personnel
so badly that we are planning to add a "Cable TV Section" dedicated to the relevant
affairs concerning Cable TV, such as fees, cable lines and programs. Certainly, our
colleagues will back up each other whenever anyone is being overwhelmed by the
workload. As for the issue of interagency support and sharing of resources, it is hard
to realize at this stage.
Q5. Based on your personal experience with the project implementation, can
multiagency partnerships improve the efficiency of government resources?
Can the agencies in a partnership reinforce and supplement each other in their
joint effort?
Sincere collaboration among agencies may indeed provide us with plentiful
resources. Our work can be more effective, but the problem remains how well we
can put resources into proper use. Sometimes, we have a sufficient supply o f mate
rials we hardly need, but other times, we never get what is urgently needed, such as
more workforce. As I mentioned before, all the concerned agencies can reinforce
each other to a pretty limited degree.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
194
Q6. I i yoor perspective, how well c o b multiagency partnerships solve the
so-called thorny issues confronting the City Government? Can they deal
effectively with the changes of laws and regulations, society, the economy and
politics?
My answer depends on how you define the "thorny issues." O f course, we all
need to coordinate and communicate with each other to get things done and basically
we haven’t had too much difficulty getting assistance from other government agen
cies. But now, there remain some problems beyond our ability to solve due to their
complexity. For instance, in certain residential areas, because the apartments, I
mean those to accommodate the veterans and their families, are built with bricks and
cement, cable-TV companies find it hard to drive in nails on the walls on which to
hang cable lines. So the only way is to set up poles for cable lines. However, the
Maintenance Department insists that all electric wire poles be buried underground.
Besides, more often than not, the residents object to other people using their walls
for the cable-laying purpose. Hence, it is a thorny problem.
If a dispute occurs, the Information Office can only try its best to broker a
communication process between the affected residents and the cable-TV enterprise.
No easy solutions can be expected until Government undertakes the renovation of
the aging housing. As for the macro environment, all kinds of changes are taking
place in a rapid manner. But in my opinion, we still can manage those changes. A
major concern of our office is that our laws and regulation be modified in time, es
pecially Article 6 of the Cable TV Law.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
195
Q7. In your opinion, are multiagency partnerships capable of meeting the de
mands for the sharing of information and professional expertise?
Yes, I certainly think so. When implementing tasks, we need other agencies to
provide us with information and knowledge. After all, public affairs are getting too
complex to be any single agency's business. We know what the division of labor is
for, but we do need more integration and coordination among our colleagues in vari
ous agencies. Based on my personal experience, I think positively of the effects of
inter-agency partnerships.
Q8. Based on your understanding, how serious is the situation of overlapping
tasks or blurry spheres of responsibility as h r as multiagency partnerships are
concerned? Are the goals and needed technologies clear and available?
The biggest problem in the cable-removal case lies in the blurring of task as
signments and, probably, the ambiguity of legal intention. For instance, in dealing
with the wall cable lines, the laws and regulations do not include clear provisions,
and the power and responsibilities of each agency are not clearly prescribed. So
ultimately it is the Information Office that has to take care of this matter. However,
the objectives we intend to accomplish are definite and quite clear. Other agencies
and the private enterprises also provide a helping hand and contribute relevant
technologies.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
196
Q9. In yoor opinion, do the staff members is a multiagency partnership take
an active attitude toward the culture of mutual coordination and collaboration?
Do they have trust in each other?
As far as this case is concerned, I believe all agencies involved tend to take
initiatives when the tasks and jurisdiction are clear. Should a problem come to our
attention, our common practice is to refer it to the relevant agency or just handle it
ourselves. Unfortunately, for problems whose nature evades a clear-cut interpreta
tion, no agencies will claim jurisdiction over them. They have a passive attitude to
ward what a partnership requires: coordination and cooperation. In feet, the Infor
mation Office alone handles most of the cable-line cases. Usually we resort to per
sonal, private channels when trying to solve cases that involve other agencies.
In other words, you may say our sense of trust is built out of private links and com
munication.
Q10. In your opinion, what are the most effective ways to conduct a multi
agency partnership, the joint meeting, the task force, ad hoc committees, or
other possible ways?
What you just mentioned are either pretty formal mechanisms or policy-level
devices. They seem to belong to the concern of real decision makers. As you know,
we work at the execution level. So in feet, our business contacts with other agencies
are done via telephone calls, memos, notices, coordination meetings, and on-the-spot
investigations, depending on the nature and complexity of the task at hand.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
197
Q11. According to your understanding, do the people in a multiagency part
nership take the partnership as a top priority? Are they equipped with suffi
cient competencies and skills necessary for the inter-agency collaboration?
As I mentioned previously, most agencies will stick to and mind their own
business. They wouldn’t bother to take inter-agency cooperation too seriously, ex
cept when instructed or authorized by superiors or ranking executives. I wouldn’t
complain too much about their being self-interest oriented.
As for task competencies, I think basically we’re able to coordinate with each
other. Alter alt we manage to do things the best we can, don’t we?
Q12. Based on your understanding, how supportive are the City Council, top
executives, and interested groups of multiagency partnerships? How frequently
are staff members in an interagency collaboration rewarded?
In the case of removing old, littered cable lines, Director Jin has been very
supportive and enthusiastic. He believes the work is worthwhile for improving
Taipei City’s appearance as a modem city. However the issue involves more than
cable-TV lines. Electric wires, telephone lines, computer network lines, and even
fixed network lines are will be making our job more complicated sooner or later.
Since Director Jin is so aware of the nature of our tasks that he allows us a higher
degree of flexibility and discretion. A citation or an award isn’t what we expect for
doing our work. To be free from being disciplined or sanctioned will be a great
blessing for us, though.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
198
Q13. In your opinion, how often are makiagency partnerships faced with
difficulties? How soon can the problems be solved?
Of course there are many difficulties. To remove the cable lines, we must
deal with a number of government agencies, people and cable-TV interests. Our
fundamental attitude is that we in the Information Office shall handle alone the prob
lems within our means to solve. If cooperation and assistance from other agencies
are needed, we will raise the request In case a problem is too sticky and tough to be
solved, we either wait patiently or submit it to a higher leveL
Post-interview Elaboration on Related Issues
Issue 1: How Possible is the Integration of Various
Agencies in Terms of Power and Duties?
The cable issue involves a total of 13 agencies, making an easy solution out
of the question. An elaborate, detailed division of labor and responsibilities among
the agencies has created a dilemma, for every one of them is only partially responsi
ble for the ultimate removal of the littered cable lines. In theory, we have agencies
each taking charge of certain functions and duties. But when it comes to getting the
work done, many agencies are quick to claim that it is none of their business. Eva
sion may be the best policy, in practice at least. It is not difficult to suggest that the
lack of timely coordination and proper integration has caused divergent, and even
opposing opinions. So interagency effort may even worsen a problem.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
199
Issue 2: How May the Revision of Laws and Regulations Help?
Article 6 of the Cable TV Law specifies that it constitutes a violation of private
rights to employ cable lines on the wall without prior permission from the owner of
the housing. In a case like this, a civil lawsuit is hardly avoidable. To discourage
this kind of legal action from happening, all agencies under the City Government,
including the Information Office, try best to mediate disputes. But more often than
not, we will fail to have them effectively solved. Many people believe some legal
revision work is necessary to help alleviate the problem.
Issue 3: What is the Attitude and Mentality Held by Other Agencies?
Though each agency is aware of its own job specifications, they stubbornly
maintain that the Information Office should be in charge of cable lines, regardless of
the circumstances. They do not bother to initiate contact, nor collaborate with our
office in seeking better solutions.
Issue 4: What Do You Think of the Mechanisms/Networks for Reporting and
Information Sharing?
Each of the 13 agencies involved in this particular case is required to discharge
certain responsibilities while endowed with certain power. However, they may fail
to realize in time that the problem in their hand actually requires other agencies'
joint effort. Sometimes a case would finally find its way to us, way after much harm
had been done. Generally what are at stake may be public safety or citizens' rights
and interests. It is important that we work more closely with each other.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
200
Issue 5: What Is It Like to Deal with Unique Cases?
Cable TV has been fairly popularized, with cable lines spreading over every
corner of Taipei As a consequence, a variety of problems have kept arising. For
instance, in old, rundown neighborhoods, particularly those resided by veterans and
their dependents, cable laying or installment has been a tough issue. Sometimes
even if the residents agree to have cable lines set up on their walls, the cable people
may have a hard time driving nails into the brick walls to firmly hold the cable lines.
Oftentimes, the fallen cable lines may cause a public safety outcry. On the other
hand, it is practically impossible to set up a pole for every cable-TV household
Even if this approach is feasible, it still runs counter to the government policy that
wire poles must be buried underground. There are just too many problems remain
ing unsolved, due largely to the inaction or mismanagement in the past by the gov
ernment. No wonder many civil servants do not feel motivated enough to handle
those sticky cases. It will be a long while before we get them seriously taken good
care of.
Issue 6: How Concerned Are You about the Issue of Human Resources?
As the lead agency supervising the cable-TV business and the management
of cable lines, the Information Office is poorly staffed. We can assign only a few
hands for the tasks. What concerns us more is the fact that no applicable laws and
regulations have granted this agency sufficient power and authority. Since public
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
201
servants should be law-abiding in conducting work, we naturally feel tied and con
strained by restrictions and worries.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
202
APPENDIX K
TRANSCRIPTIONS OF AN INTERVIEW ON THE CASE
OF LAO-SHANG PRIMARY SCHOOL (BOPILIAO)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
203
Transcriptions of an Interview on the case of Lao-shang Primary School (Bopiliao)
Interviewee: Mr. L, Specialist, Bureau of Education
Date: August 15,2000.
Place: Office, Bureau of Education, TCG.
Background: Mr. L is one of the few TCG officials qualified to provide per
spectives on a complicated multiagency partnership like the one under investigation.
Ever since 1988, purchases o f the designated area for Lao-shang Primary School
have been a thorny issue and Mr. L has been “muddling through” in his execution of
public duties. Though blessed with expertise in architecture and designing, he has
been caught in a web of bureaucratic traps, red-tape, indecision, and the like. As a
line manager taking charge o f the project, he needs to coordinate other agencies un
der circumstance in which constraints of various sources and kinds abound.
Q l. Could you please tell us something about the case of Lao-shang Primary
School (Bopiliao)? Why b the case so complicated?
Originally it was merely a land purchase deal by the City Government. It
could have been settled through making fair and just compensations for the owners
of the buildings on the land. However, the controversy of how to preserve historical
monuments came into play, turning the case into a highly complicated one. To make
the story short, let me just say that we have to solve the following problems: First,
the preservation of cultural relics and heritage; second, the lack o f relevant laws and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
204
regulations to draw back upon; third, all the bureaus and agencies with an interest in
the case have failed to coordinate efforts, thus reducing the effectiveness of their
functions. As a result of so many persistent problems, our measures in handing this
case have caused complaints and criticisms by citizens and the mass media alike.
Q2. As far as the case is concerned, what city government agencies are in
volved? How do they interact with each other? How do they share decision
making power in their interactions?
The Bureau of Education is the major player, in charge of coordinating other
agencies, including Cultural Affairs Bureau of Taipei, Bureau of Civil Affairs,
Bureau of Urban Development, Department of Land Administration, and so forth.
When we started to deal with the case around 1989, the preservation o f cultural rel
ics wasn't a big deal yet. Only after the promulgation of the law on the protection of
cultural relics, did we get serious about the legal implications for our work and their
constraints.
We immediately confronted the need to quickly acquaint ourselves with the
relevant regulations on preserving and protecting historical buildings, sites and me
morial structures. Operation manuals had to be reprocessed too and extra work kept
mounting. In other words, the interactions among the agencies were insufficient
both in quantity and quality, and our performance suffered badly. Later the case at
tracted the attention of the public and the media, which in turn drew the former
mayor's concern about the related difficulties in this case. Positive developments
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
205
have followed, such as the formulating and modification of regulations and more
budget appropriations. Of course, our morale has been raised. As for decision
power, I have to admit that, in this particular case, it has been the few top executives
who make decisions. The agencies that work with us are not given adequate power
beyond the execution level.
Q3. Based on your personal understanding, which are the driving motives for
this case?
Actually, a combination of various forces is behind the case. Partially, the
pressure comes from the budgeting process itself, while we are constantly under the
pressure and constraints of work progress and legal requirements. Here is a concrete
instance. Part of our regular work is the legal acquisition of private land for public
purposes. But we are required by law to complete taking down and removing the
surface building on schedule from the newly government-acquired land. Otherwise,
the original landlord is likely to exercise the right to buy it back. Under this circum
stance, the city government may not be financially ready to solve the problem. Our
staff may be subject to sanctions for doing a poor job. So we must not fell behind
the work schedule, however tight it may be.
Another pressure is from interest groups and their lobbying power. Usually
they take their concerns directly to the City Council through interested council repre
sentatives or other political means. They can be effective in having their purposes
served. Of course, this kind of pressure may play a positive role. Some opinions and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
206
ideas thus brought to our attention may be valuable and a political process like this
may help with the solution of our problems.
Q4. Can the multiagency partnerships functioning in the City Government
bring into full play each unit's functions? How do they support each other in
terms of manpower, material, and financial resources?
As for as the Bopiliao Case is concerned, the interagency partnership is
hardly a successful one. We don’t witness much integration taking place. For basi
cally we mind our own business by sticking to our manuals and assigned tasks. As a
matter of fact, each agency is quite on its own, either in the aspect of manpower or
financial resources. Sharing of pride and blame is almost impossible, let alone mate
rial and financial resources.
Q5. Can multiagency partnerships make the use of resources more efficient?
How would you evaluate the efficiency of resources used in the Bopiliao case?
Indeed, resources can be employed with better efficiency if a multiagency
partnership works well. Like many other cases, the Bopiliao case involves a great
number of government agencies, and its need for various kinds of resources does
overwhelm any single agency. Since coordination and sharing among us are hardly
satisfactory, I dare not say I’m happy with how the resources are being put to use.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
207
Q6. Based on your personal experience, have you confronted knotty, tough
problems when you try to discharge your duty, like pulling down the houses?
Can interagency collaboration help solve such difficulties? Do different execu
tives (mayor or department heads) issue conflicting instructions or directives?
How necessary and urgent is it to revise laws and regulations that concern your
execution of public service? How do yon weigh and handle demands for the
protection of historical sites and smooth community development?
Difficult problems keep surfacing. On a regular basis, we try to coordinate
varying government departments, promote mutual understanding between with cul
tural organizations, and communicate with residents to be relocated for losing their
housing. Since our job involves many people’s interest and even livelihood, con
flicts and confrontations are numerous and challenging. So interagency partnerships
help but cannot entirely solve such problems.
For instance, before a special task force came to being at the end of 1999, the
Bopiliao case had been regarded as an ordinary case. Many cross-agency coordina
tion meetings and consultation sessions with Civil Affairs Department were held
time and again. However, the participants knew neither the goals nor the specific
tasks expected of them. As it turned out, the organizing agency, the Department of
Educational Administration, was the only one aware of what tasks lay ahead. Not
surprisingly, the Education people had to confront and take on the problems alone.
Speaking of executive leadership, we know this case has involved Mayor Ma
and his predecessor, Mayor Chen. Basically, instructions given to us by both leaders
are correct and proper. Despite this, our staff still found it hard to abide by faithfully
the laws and regulations governing our work. Before action is done to revise or
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
208
reinterpret those legal rules, we are always in danger of being subject to prosecution.
Go ahead and tear down the buildings to accommodate the expansion need of Lao-
shang Primary School, we will be violating the cultural relics protection law. If we
wait passively, we certainly run counter to the urban planning law. Caught in a di
lemma like this, what can government workers do? The revision of laws and regula
tions should be a top priority in the agenda. If no revision is feasible for the time
being, a flexible interpretation of the rules should be allowed and made clear to the
staff.
Returning to your question of how I balance the value of protecting historical
sites or community development, I would say— it depends. Each case is different. It
wouldn’t be appropriate to make a general rule for all cases.
Q7. In your opinion, are multiagency partnerships capable of meeting the
demands for the sharing of information and professional expertise?
In fact, it is very difficult for the concerned agencies to share information and
knowledge. We all have our own core knowledge and expertise that have been built
over the years. Also, we see things from different perspectives. As I mentioned ear
lier, it is often the case that the agencies we invite for consultation and coordination
may have little knowledge about this case. Honestly speaking, it beats me if we
must explain to them time and again what they are supposed to know and take up as
their tasks.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
209
Q8. As yon see it, how serious are the circumstances of over-lapping tasks or
blurry jurisdictions in your case of interagency partnership? Are the goals
dear and technologies specific enough?
The division of labor in this case is fairly clear. So the real problem lies in the
attitude of each department and the staff. One major shortcoming of the government
is, rather, its overemphasis on designating a leading agency regardless of the nature
of the task to be confronted. As a custom, the lead agency is left to do the battle all
by itself, even if other bureaus and units are obliged to offer assistance and backup.
This is serious. We know many aspects affect the outcome of a public policy or pro
gram. It is impossible for one department alone to deliver the required services
effectively. A reality check shows that we regularly deal with tasks for which our
own knowledge and skills are not adequate.
For the Bopiliao case the Educational Administration Department organized
a special task force composed of officials with professional expertise on culture,
civil affairs, land development, and even urban planning and research. The primary
purpose is to establish a mechanism with which all concerned agencies may develop
better partnership. Unfortunately, the interagency partnership has worked out well
yet for the old habits of preserving self interests and own turf remain stubbornly at
work. A clear result of this poor partnership is the lead agency having to take care of
everything by itself. So it is easy to tell why this public program has had a lackluster
service record.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
210
Q9. In your opinion, do the staff members in a multiagency partnership take
an active attitude toward the culture of mutual coordination and collaboration?
Do they have trust in each other?
Speaking of the culture of coordination, I hate to say that most people prefer to
be the ones calling the shots. I think the one particular attitude popular in our gov
ernment agencies is both wrong and devastating. Being the boss is fine, but who is
willing to make his own hands dirty? I've seen cases in which the unit that adminis
ters historical sites does not take any initiative to engage in any real renovation
work. They only show interest in giving orders and approvals. Or the unit in charge
of environmental protection only checks the environmental impact appraisal reports
submitted by someone else. Consequently, toxic waste solutions are being dumped
at the expense of public health and government authority. What about the urban
planning people? They hold one meeting after another, busy with a tight schedule
for endless project reviews. That’s what they are mostly about. How much time,
manpower, and resources are being wasted this way? I’m doubtful about public ser
vants’ mentality toward work.
Q10. What are the effective ways to make interagency partnerships work
better?
In my experience, I think neither the current task force nor the previous coor
dination meetings have achieved much important. Possible factors for their ineffec
tiveness include: (1) We missed the best timing for forming such a multiagency
partnership, and the participants failed to contribute insight and opinions in time.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
211
For instance, preserving sites of historical value has been a national and social con
sensus for a long while. We could have raised the preservation issue in the case of
Bopiliao and solved it 10 years ago before things got so complicated; and (2) The
bureaus and departments in a partnership are hierarchically at the same level without
any means of coercion. Any suggestions must go through the bureaucracy before a
binding decision reaches the staff down at the implementation level Certainly this
mechanism is time-consuming and ineffective.
Essentially, to make interagency partnerships effective, we must adopt the
following measures: (1) Set up a single window to process all relevant applications
and reviews, with a proper rewarding and punishment mechanism in place to moti
vate employees for better job performance; (2) Specify the procedure and agenda for
concerned personnel to contribute opinions and accomplish tasks; and (3) Communi
cate clearly and explicitly with each other during every stage, from planning, execu
tion, to evaluation.
Q11. According to your understanding, do the people in the multiagency part
nership take the partnership as a top priority? Are they equipped with suffi
cient competencies and skills necessary for the inter-agency collaboration?
It is only natural that our partners give first priority to their own work. Not
many would rather take the partnership as a top business. Communication and co
ordination among the agencies exist. But generally it is pretty much limited to
the execution detail since the decision power is vested in top executives.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
212
Communication and coordination among staff may not substantially affect the pro
gram outcome, unless clear and specific instructions are secured beforehand.
Q12. Based on your understanding, how supportive are the City Council, top
executives, and interested groups of the multiagency partnerships? How
frequently are the staff members in an interagency collaboration rewarded?
It is hard to determine whether a partnering program may win the support of
the Council representatives or other policy-advocacy organizations. It all depends
on the nature of each individual program. Besides, interested groups have their own
considerations and unique perspectives too. Still, we need their blessing and ap
proval. I don't think our efforts will get appreciated and rewarded.
Q13. In your opinion, how often are multiagency partnerships faced with
difficulties? How soon can the problems be solved?
Sure. An interagency partnership like the current one often encounters diffi
culties. Our citizens often complain that there is insufficient horizontal coordination
between government agencies. But I personally think it is the existing system that is
to blame for the problem. I do hope the Research & Evaluation Commission takes
pains to re-examine the division of labor among departments and suggest necessary
reengineering work. We may render better and more convenient services to citizens
in a proactive way.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
213
Post-interview Elaboration on Related Issues
Issue 1: On the Issue of a Unified Command System
Judging from the development of the Bopiliao case from its very beginning
to the various stages of execution, we may easily conclude that every single agency
habitually goes its own way. Efficiency and effectiveness have suffered as a result
of the absence of a unified command system. No one is there to take account o f all
probable situations and plan ahead accordingly. What hurts more is not the fact that
many agencies are wasting time and resources doing the same thing at the same
time. More serious damage may have been done long before the command system is
in place. Public authority and leadership tend to suffer when a proper mechanism of
coordination and cooperation is absent or poorly operated.
Issue 2: On the Issue of Government Agencies Not Acting in Unison
Based on the documents researched, data collected, and interviews with rele
vant personnel, some problems might have been solved sooner or properly. Overall,
many factors have come into play, most notably among them being selfishness, slow
administrative procedures and inflexibility. A common experience most citizens
share is that each public agency sets its own rules and goes its own way. We are
constantly reminded by the way government officials treat us that keeping faith is
the best you can do.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
214
Issue 3: On the issue of interest groups and public policy
In the Bopiliao case, the affected residents and cultural groups have tried
hard to mobilize available resources, including political means, hoping to affect the
direction and outcome of this public program. To administer a program with much
controversy like this one, internal integration and collaboration are a top priority, so
that the involved agencies may demonstrate policy integrity as well as administrative
competencies. For a program to accomplish its efficacy and optimal effectiveness, a
well-functioning multiagency partnership can reduce its controversial nature and the
harmful effects of turf war. Essentially speaking, individuals and organized groups
must be given sufficient input to the decision making process of any public policy or
program that affects them. Their legitimate voices should be heard and paid heed to.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
215
APPENDIX L
TRANSCRIPTIONS OF AN INTERVIEW ON TAIPEI'S
BAG-BASED GARBAGE DISPOSAL CHARGES AND
FURTHER ELABORATION ON RELATED ISSUES
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
216
Transcriptions of an Interview on Taipei's
Bag-based Garbage Disposal Charges and Further
Elaboration on Related Issues
Interviewee: Ms. Y, Section Chief, Bureau of Environmental Protection
Date: August 29, 2000.
Place: Bureau of Environmental Protection, TCG.
Background: A veteran in her current post, Ms. Y has job responsibilities rang
ing from planning for resource recycling and pricing of garbage disposal, to coordi
nating other public organizations for improving garbage delivery effectiveness and
environmental protection advocacy, among others. In this bag-based garbage dis
posal charge program, she plays a key role in deciding the fate of one of the Mayor's
pet programs. Constrained by the interactive forces from interested groups, she finds
the task highly taxing and demanding.
Q l. Would you please talk about the program of levying garbage disposal
charge on the basis of each bag disposed? What are the major problems in
volved?
This program has been one of the pet programs administered by the City Gov
ernment. In executing this new program, however, we have been faced with many
difficulties. The greatest of all is insufficient manpower to handle so much unex
pected work. This dilemma has afflicted all sections throughout our department.
Take my section, Section Five, for example. Our workload has increased three times
compared with what we regularly handled before the program. After the launching
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
217
of this policy on July 1, for a few weeks we had been literally stuck to the telephones
just to answer endless inquiries.
The second problem is the mounting pressure from insufficient preparation
time. From the planning stage to the trial stage and finally the formal implementa
tion, we have staged lots of shows and press conferences for promotions and demon
strations. We were merely allowed a short span of time to get so many things done
and ready. What's more, we have suffered from an obvious shortage of resources to
support and match our effort. For instance, we don’t have enough vehicles for col
lecting recyclable materials and the trucks are not sufficiently staffed. One problem
after another just keeps arising and every one of them sounds like an emergency. So
we are too overwhelmed by so much work to tell clearly the more urgent matters
from others. Personally, I feel I’m overworked and overburdened. My heart can’t
stand it any longer.
Q2. As far as you know, what departments are involved in this new garbage
disposal program? How do they interact with each other? Do these depart
ments have decision-making power?
In the mayor's words, all the departments of the city government should be
involved, whether in actually carrying out this program or making it known to the
general public. However, some Bureaus work more closely with us. For instance,
the Bureau of Civil Affairs and the Bureau of Public Works provide us with relevant
information, such as household data and addresses, so we can deliver garbage bags.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
218
The delivery work is facilitated by the participation of neighborhood watch and
community organizers. In publicity work, we are in close partnership with the Bu
reau of Education. They help recruit schoolmasters and teachers to engage in pro
motion and sideshows. At the initial stage, we organized training sessions for 1,500
teachers in order to give them an idea of the new public policy. Apart from provid
ing an overview of the program, two-way communications are the underlying
purpose. Our people in the Bureau of Environmental Protection also attended such
sessions to do live demonstrations and clarify questions.
Division of Market Supervision, Bureau of reconstruction is also closely re
lated to the program because the markets under their supervision produce tons of
garbage and are impacted by the new collection and disposal measure. By the way,
another reason schools need to work closely with us is they know the issue of gar
bage disposal on campus has been quite a problem. They help us solve the difficul
ties they alone can't handle. As for decision-making power, all departments largely
make suggestions, and it is up to the top executives to make the final decision.
Q3. As far as you know, what is the driving force behind this project?
On a higher level, it is the sense of pride that prompts us to undertake this
innovation. In a sense, people feel good for being involved in this garbage disposal
revolution. Reactions and approvals from the mass media and academics have been
positive, which further gives us a great encouragement. Moreover, the mayor and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
219
the Council pay great attention to the new initiative, which gives us pressure. On a
lower level, we have to do it if we are to keep the job.
Q4. In a multiagency partnership like this, how successful has been the integra
tion of manpower, material, and financial resources? How do you reinforce
and support each other?
As I just mentioned briefly, every section in our department is faced with a
sudden increase of workload, so no one can spare manpower to support others. Of
course, in a contingency, everyone will offer help but on an informal and irregular
basis. Moreover, our citizens are demanding more and better services. Pressured by
the rising expectations for quality improvement, all the departments are suffering
from lack of relevant resources, such as manpower and vehicles. More often than
not, even if you can get help from other departments, the resources they offer may be
put to proper use. For example, it is impossible to use a police car for garbage col
lection.
Still, when intra-agency support is not available, we may turn to outside
channels. For instance, we managed to use private renting services to solve the ve
hicle shortage problem. As for expenditures, the entire project is covered and
funded by the Second Reserve Fund, a general fund for emergencies and special
needs. But when necessary, each department may contribute from their own budget.
For instance, the Department of Educational Administration has helped to organize
several coordination meetings out of their own financial resources.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
220
Q5. Docs interagency partnership improve the efficiency of resources? In the
case of this bag-based garbage disposal charge, how efficiently are the relevant
resources utilized?
Up to this point, we have been satisfied with the utilization of the relevant re
sources. Our partners, such as Educational Administration and Civil Affairs, have
both provided resources needed to help with the implementation of the policy. As a
result, the Department of Environmental Protection is relieved of some burdens.
In addition, Mayor Ma attaches great importance to this new initiative and
pushes for close cooperation among departments in both publicity work and imple
mentation. So all the resources at the disposal of the city government have been
called into use, be it manpower, material power, or the budgeted monies. Mayor Ma
has on more than one occasion urged us to strengthen our advocacy efforts for this
program.
Q6. As far as you know, have you encountered tough problems in the course of
implementing the new garbage collection initiative? How have interagency
partnerships helped in solving the problems? Do different leaders (the mayor
or department heads) have different requirements (political changes)? Are the
laws and decrees sufficiently competent, or is revision needed (legal changes)?
What influence does the policy have on the lifestyle of the citizens (economic
and social changes)?
We have often come across tough problems throughout the implementation.
Besides the pressure of manpower and time, the greatest trouble is that new prob
lems keep popping up every day, and their solution always takes a lot of our time.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
221
For example, garbage generated by various markets is a big problem. The first con
cern is the disposal charge. If the vendors are required to use standard garbage bags,
they will have to pay a high garbage disposal fee, which in turn adds to the cost of
commodities and consequently the burden of consumers.
Secondly, vendors at the markets hold the opinion that organic garbage
should not be considered pure garbage, since it can be composted and made for prof
itable applications. There is no reason a disposal charge should be made on this kind
of garbage. So basically, for these and some other problems, even interagency col
laboration cannot be of much help.
The success or failure of the policy has a lot to do with the attitude and stand
of Mayor Ma, however. His requirements and personal interest are actually a major
source of work pressure.
Indeed, the revision of pertinent laws and decrees will facilitate the imple
mentation of the program. For example, the supply of data on local residents and
businesses is closely related to our work but some relevant laws and decrees need to
make change in order to make it possible. At last, I want to say that the Taipei citi
zens are highly supportive of the program, which makes us really proud of our own
efforts in its implementation.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
222
Q7. As for as you know, can multiagency partnerships meet the needs for
information and knowledge sharing?
As I see it in the new garbage disposal program, working relationships
among different municipal departments are quite good. But there remain many
problems other departments cannot solve alone and we have to handle them by our
own means. Specifically speaking, during the early phase of the implementation, we
answered telephones all day long. Distributors of the new garbage bags, consumers,
and over 2,000 vending shops all eagerly placed calls via a special line for the Envi
ronmental Protection Department. The public’s need for information surged in such
a short time that 1 lost my voice from answering the numerous calls.
Q8. As far as you know, how serious are the situations of task-overiaps or
obscurity of jurisdiction in your case of multi-department partnership? Are
these departments dear about their objectives and technologies for the task ac
complishment?
I dare say we have a quite clear division of work among the bureaus and de
partments. It is only a rare case that we have overlaps and obscurity of tasks. How
ever, in publicity and advocacy work, there is a confusion of coordination, now that
Mayor Ma encourages every department to get involved. All of us are aware that
the mayor treats this program as a top priority, so we have a clear sense of the
objectives.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
223
partnership take an active attitude toward the culture of mutual coordination
and collaboration? Do they have trust in each other?
They were rather passive at the beginning, because they didn't think it was their
responsibility. Very often they were not willing to cooperate. Things turned better
later on. As for mutual trust, it depends much on personal relations between job per
formers built up through personal contacts.
Q10. As far as you know, what is the most effective form of an interagency
partnership?
Coordination meetings can be very effective. During a brainstorming session
with representatives from all concerned departments present, good ideas and practi
cal solutions may be activated and a great consensus quickly reached. We do daily
communications mostly through phone calls to handle trivialities. Things of crucial
significance and impact are decided at the top executive level. Apart from coordina
tion meetings, a cross-agency special task force can be helpfuL In our case, initially
our people held a meeting almost every day, from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m., to handle
tough problems. With fewer problems confronting us, the need for frequent consul
tation has been greatly reduced. Now our task force people meet twice a week, on
Tuesday and Thursday.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
224
Q ll. According to your understanding, do the people in the multiagency part
nership take the partnership as a top priority? Are they equipped with suffi
cient competencies and skills necessary for the inter-agency collaboration?
At the beginning, most departments tended to take a self-oriented perspective
and were mainly concerned about their own problems, such as shortage of hands,
equipment or budget for the necessary tasks, including publicity. As the cases vary,
we need to think of creative ways to handle them effectively. For instance, we may
request a superior, such as the mayor himself to do the final coordination work.
Doubtless to say, the effect is apparent and instant, since these departments know
that they are dealing with a job in which the mayor has a high stake. Usually, they
show a positive attitude toward and a high interest in a program of this nature.
However, when it comes down to the actual implementation work, much still de
pends on lower-level staff members of the concerned departments. Basically, I think
they are somehow competent in coordination and communications.
Q12. Based on your understanding, how supportive are the City Council, top
executives, and interested groups of the multiagency partnership? How fre
quently are the staff members in an interagency collaboration rewarded? How
likely do the departments and their staff involved get rewarded?
This bag-based garbage disposal program had been well received during a
trial run long before its formal implementation. Indeed, an approval rate of 70% in a
later poll was very impressive and convincing. Therefore, the City Council ap
proved the budget for the program at the end of last June, with a resolution request
ing that the new garbage disposal charge program be implemented on July 1 this
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
225
year in place of the previous measure. You know, the old system was based on the
level of water consumption of each household. Of course, the Council’s resolution
has a strong binding power over our administration. And it has a great influence on
the implementation of the program. As for the question of staff members getting
rewarded, I haven’t seen concrete evidence yet. However, the mayor and our de
partment head seem generous enough to give us oral citations and recognitions. But
that’s what has happened to us.
Q13. As far as you know, are there many problems with multi-department
cooperation? Can they be solved quickly?
Problems not only often emerge from multiagency cooperation because it in
volves many departments, but many individual cases are not problem-free at all.
Take this kind of garbage disposal charge policy as an example, it has been in prac
tice for five years in South Korea. Recently, they had a mid-level official coming to
Taipei for a visit. I asked him if they still had problems after practicing the program
for five years, winning a worldwide reputation as a successful model He frankly
answered there were still quite a few problems. Petty violations alone reach as high
as 60,000 cases during a single year nationwide.
Based on my own observation of the program’s actual implementation, I
think, apart from cooperation and a genuine commitment from all the concerned
departments, we should have worked out detailed implementation measures and pro
cedures beforehand. Specifically, the first step before implementing the bag-based
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
226
garbage disposal charge is to enforce the requirement of no-landing garbage to get
rid of the custom of littering garbage on street comers. As a follow-up measure, gar
bage classification should be strictly enforced as part of a mechanism for resource
recycling. Meanwhile, the public should be made aware that garbage classification
is mandatory and violators will be fined. After building up a strong mechanism and
capability for the operation of resource recycling, it will be more natural and easier
to implement this revolutionary program. Departments and their staff involved can
acquire and accumulate needed experience and skills as they go through the various
stages. Interagency collaboration and partnership can be established more firmly and
in smoother operations as well.
Post-interview Elaboration on Related Issues
Issue 1: On the Issue of Organizing a Partnership
The switch to a new garbage-disposal charge approach impacts the citizens
drastically as they are required to change overnight their daily habits. Almost all the
city departments and agencies should be fully involved, so that they make a
contribution to the promotion and successful implementation of the program.
However, after talking with relevant people, it is felt that these departments do not
demonstrate a great willingness to cooperate mainly because most of them consider
it the responsibility of the Environmental Protection Bureau. They tend to think a
“supportive role” is what they can play best. Therefore, in many cases, they will put
their own situations and needs well before those of the partnership, such as
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
227
situations and needs well before those of the partnership, such as manpower and
workload. Which is to say, the requests made by the Department of Environment
Protection will not be treated as a top priority.
Issue 2: On the Issue of Manpower
Through observation and interviews with relevant people, this study finds the
shortage of hands has been a serious problem. Take for instance the lead agency, the
Department of Environment Protection, workers in the forefront often have to work
extra hours until 7:00 or 8:00 p.m. People in other departments working for the new
program also have a heavy workload. If this situation continues, a vicious cycle of
work inertia and evasion may take shape and affect the implementation of the pro
gram. This is a tough problem that must be solved now.
Issue 3: On the Issue of Coordination of Relevant Resources
From the trial run to the overall implementation, the whole process has been
so fast-moving that many supportive measures have failed to follow up, such as the
acquisition of garbage collecting vehicles, the handling of recyclable, recovered
resources, and the firm designation of recovery sites. The surging need for so many
materials and resources is beyond any single agency to satisfy alone, not to mention
the fact that the departments in partner with the lead agency do not share the same
degree of urgency. This problem also needs to be solved urgently.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
228
Issue 4: On the Issue of Dealing with Special Cases
In the process of implementation, the agencies have run into two particularly
tough problems. One of them is the campus garbage. Since a school is a public
place, garbage may be intentionally dropped everywhere on the campus by irrespon
sible citizens, increasing sharply the amount of garbage chargeable to the victimized
school. This problem is made worse by the force of nature. For any campus, fallen
leaves and branches can pile up, making it tough to dispose of them at the expense of
either the school’s own budget or that of the government. All this requires close co
operation and coordination with the Department of Educational Administration. The
other notable problem concerns how to deal with the garbage at private and public
markets. What these markets generate is not pure garbage, for instance. How to
handle messy garbage mingled with waste ranging from fresh form products to ani
mal intestines can be a vexingly complicated problem. How the rates of charge are
fixed and how to maintain a clean, tidy disposal process for the garbage are among
so many questions that call for supportive measures fro the agencies involved.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
229
APPENDIX M
TRANSCRIPTIONS OF AN INTERVIEW ON TAIPEI'S PEI-TOU
SPRING MUSEUM & WATERPARK
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
230
Transcriptions of an Interview on Taipei's Pei-tou
Spring Museum & Waterpark
Interviewee: Ms. C, Secretary, Bureau of Cultural Affairs
Date: September 21,2000.
Place: Office, Bureau of Cultural Affairs, TCG.
Background: Currently a secretary in the Bureau of Cultural affairs, Ms. C has
been involved in managing Pei-tou Hot Spring Museum for more than six years.
After the museum was officially sanctified as a site with much cultural and historic
value and was put under government protection, she had been in charge of trans
forming the rundown place into a cultural as well as recreational attraction. Her
main responsibilities then included coordinating land appropriation, restoration
planning for the museum, and scheming a comprehensive blueprint to renew the mu
seum before its official opening in 1999. After her promotion to her current post,
she has been assigned a supervisory role, with coordination with other agencies as
her primary job content.
QI. Would you please talk about the implementation process of the Peitou
Spring Museum and Waterark? What are the major problems you have come
across?
The site of the current museum used to be a location with hot spring accessi
ble to the public for baths. It was built 87 years ago during the Japanese reign in
Taiwan. With the end of the Japanese occupation, the public baths first came under
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
231
the jurisdiction of Taipei County, then became a guesthouse of the Taipei County
Council and a police field office later on.
After the police office moved out, the site had been unoccupied until it was
rediscovered in 1996 by a group of teachers and students from Peitou Primary
School during a culture-related educational activity.
At the initiative of the local community, the Taipei City Council agreed to
submit an application to list the site as a historic heritage. After its approval by the
Ministry of Interior Affairs, the site legally became a Class-Ill ancient relic. In order
to rejuvenate the site and make use of it, while protecting its cultural and historic
value, it was later decided, after consultation with experts and the community, that
the municipal government work out a plan to convert it into a hot spring museum.
Section 3 of the Civil Affairs Bureau was held responsible for all necessary coordi
nation and the actual implementation work. After several years of efforts, the mu
seum was opened to the public in 1999, becoming another important attraction site in
Taipei for recreation, study and visits.
Major problems that have occurred in the implementation process are as fol
lows: the first one is garbage. According to the division of work among the con
cerned government agencies, the Division of City Parks and Street Light, Bureau of
Public Works should be responsible for maintaining the exterior environment of the
museum, while the Bureau of Cultural Affairs will take care of the interior environ
ment and the museum’s operations. However, the museum is a popular attraction
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
232
and visitors there generate a lot of garbage. At first, through personal relations with
the head of the Park Administration, their people were willing to dispose of our gar
bage after the museum workers bagged it. With a new leader taking charge of the
Park Administration, this cooperative practice can no longer continue. Conse
quently, the museum administrator has to make its own budget and pay a sanitary
company to dispose of the garbage.
Another problem is administration. Beside the museum building is an open
square for use by citizens and performing groups on ordinary days. The Park Divi
sion is the agency responsible for its management. But the citizens don't know that
and they often come to the museum administrator to get permission for using the
square. When told to contact the Park Division instead, very often they complain for
having to make a second visit elsewhere. Some performing groups don't bother to
apply for permission and may just go ahead without getting any agency's prior con
sent. Should problems occur, who should be held accountable and responsible?
Q2. As far as you know, what departments are involved in this project? How
do they interact with each other? Do these departments have decision-making
power?
The agencies involved in this case include the Bureau of Civil Affairs, the
Park Division, Cultural Affairs, Public Works, Urban Development, Land Admini
stration, Budget, Accounting and Statistics Department, Transportation Bureau, and
Research, Development & Evaluation Commission. These departments cooperate
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
233
mostly through coordination meeting and on-the-spot checks to solve relevant prob
lems. I think these departments have no ultimate decision-making power. It is the
few top executives who have a final say on the major decisions
Q3. As far as you know, what are the main incentives for this particular
project?
We can examine this issue from two perspectives. First, it is the passionate
involvement and profound enthusiasm of the local people that push them to provide
voluntarily materials and resources needed to support and facilitate the construction,
opening, and running of the museum. The second incentive is pressure from inter
ested groups and public opinion leaders, particularly those City Council members
who have a strong base and connections in the Peitou District. Instructions and direc
tives from executives are also a driving force behind the project.
Q4. In an interagency partnership like this, how successful has the integration
of manpower, material, and financial resources been? How do you reinforce
and support each other?
In the case of the hot-spring museum, integrated collaboration among these
departments has been working well. Some factors may have been that heir respec
tive responsibilities are clear and they just need to perform their own job well To
make such cooperation effective, whether in terms of manpower support or sharing
material resources and expenditures, a clear idea about the tasks and responsibilities
of the departments in partnership with us should serve as the basis for drawing out
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
234
any plans. This approach will make it possible for them to provide support and fa
cilitate mutual cooperation.
Q5. Do inter-departmental partnerships enable strengthen the efficiency of re
sources? In the case of Peitou Spring Museum & Water-park, what are the
situations concerning the utilization of relevant resources? Is such utilization
efficient?
If what I just mentioned is practiced, an interagency partnership will, of
course, make use of resources in a more efficient way. In the case of the museum,
resources have been used quite efficiently, from its construction, opening, to daily
operations.
Q6. As far as you know, have you run into any tough problems in the course of
the implementation of this project? How may cross-agency partnerships help
solve such problems? Do different executives (the mayor or department heads)
have different requirements (due to political change)? Are current laws and
decrees competent enough, or do they need revision (legal changes)? What in
fluence does the project have on the lifestyle of the citizens (economic and social
changes)?
The project has been working quite smoothly, and we haven’t come across
many tough problems. Actually, most problems were solved by related departments
alone for falling within their respective jurisdiction. Not much multi-department
collaboration has been called for. Indeed, in this project, we often have different,
sometimes conflicting, directives from different superiors. Three department heads
have been involved in the project, with each holding on to a different perspective
about the museum’s orientation. One held that the museum should embody the
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
235
characteristics of its host local community and all the plan be based on this principle.
His successor, Mr. Lin, suggested that the museum should bring to new life a hot
spring molded after the old Japanese style, while its functions and related aspects
should be cast and interpreted based on contemporary perspectives. Finally, with Ms
Ying-tai Long in fell charge, the focus has turned to whether the museum can be
transformed and managed into a site of international interest. So different leaders
have different requirements due individual perspectives, hence forcing the museum
to focus on different things. Meanwhile, the workload of the relevant departments
and their staff has been on the rise, as a consequence.
Q7. As far as you know, can cross-agency partnerships meet the needs for in
formation and knowledge sharing?
In my own experience, municipal departments mostly do not favor a recipro
cating attitude toward information and knowledge sharing. They simply take what
they need, ignoring the fact that the completion of a public project requires suppor
tive feedback and a two-way flow o f information and knowledge. One-way street
never works at all. I do think that the technique and attitude with which we ap
proach each other should also be improved.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
236
Q8. As far as you know, is there any case of task overbps or obscurity in your
case o f multi-department partnership? Are these rebted departments clear
about the objectives of their job and the necessary skills?
As far as job overlaps are concerned, there shouldn't be much problem as
long as all the departments in partner with each other are clear about the obligations
and responsibilities assigned to them. Problems exist in areas where jurisdiction is
not clear. In these cases, we have to resort to pressure from different sources, such
as the department heads or the City Council. If the problems of over-lapping tasks
can be solved by a clearer division of labor or the intervention of someone with
binding power, technical means are no more a problem.
Q9. As far as you know, do people involved in the cross-agency partnership
share a common understanding of the need for mutual coordination and coop
eration? Do they have an active attitude and mutual trust?
Every civil servant understands the need for coordination and cooperation.
The question is what incentives should be provided and what methods should be
employed to help bring about the result of having a "consensus" and an "active atti
tude" firmly established. In my experience, the establishment of personal relations,
or a social network, between staff members jointly doing a job can better achieve the
purpose. The more closely they are in contact with each other on a personal level,
the more trust they will have in each other. They will get help more easily when
problems arise. The sharing of information and other resources seems more natural
when it's some personal acquaintances you are dealing with.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
237
Q10. As far as yon know, what are the most effective ways for interagency
partnerships?
I think it pretty much depends on the nature of each individual case you have
to cope with. For some cases, a special task force presided over by an executive
with decision power will serve the purpose wonderfully. Under certain circum
stances, some cases require no more than skillful coordination and cooperation
among the staff. Still, some require on-the-spot checks and decisions by experienced
staff. In the case of the museum, we largely resorted to coordination and on-the-spot
checks.
Q U. As far as yon know, do members in a multiagency partnership take the
partnership as their top priority? Do they have competencies for coordination
and communication?
It is a fact we have to accept that each department tends to take its own tasks
way before those of other departments. That's why consideration should be given to
the workload and budget of each individual department before involving it in a part
nership. Otherwise, its people and resources departments cannot be folly committed
to the joint effort as a top priority. They tend to consider the partnership as an extra
source of undesired workload.
As for skills and abilities in communication and coordination work, of course,
every government worker possesses some of them. Doubtless to say, when the task
assignment at hand is clear, they will go along with the job. If it is ambiguous and
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
238
blurry situations exist, an executive decision maker needs to intervene and arbitrate.
After all, staff workers merely do what they are instructed to do. In such a situation,
not much coordination and communication skill is called for.
Q12. Based on your understanding, how supportive are the City Council, top
executives, and interested groups o f the multiagency partnership? How fre
quently are the staff members in an interagency collaboration rewarded? How
fikely do the departments and their staff involved get rewarded?
The degree of support from the Council, executives, and policy-related or
ganizations depends on whether the project is of their concern. Specifically, it has to
be related to their own core interests, the number of votes involved, policy approval
rate, or campaign commitments. In the case of the museum, Council Representa
tives with an origin in the Peitou area did approach the case with more attention and
interest than others. Participating members in a cross-agency partnership are not
likely to get rewards because it is not within their job specifications. Besides, more
likely than not, it is difficult to assess individual contribution and thus give proper
credit individually.
Q13. As far as you know, are there many problems with multi-department
collaboration? Can they be solved quickly?
In our case, there have not been many problems and difficulties in need
of extreme care. Most of them are related to detailed administration work and,
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
239
especially, garbage treatment. But as mentioned previously, they are hardly a seri
ous concern now.
Elaboration on Related Issues
Issue 1: On the Issue of Unitary. Integrated Administration
The square outside the museum is designed and intended to be used by citi
zens and performing groups. The Park Division is officially designated to adminis
trate its operations. However, most people do not bother to go to the City Hall,
where they may get permission for using the facility. The gap of understanding and
physical distance discourages interested citizens from using the square in a lawful
way. This problem may not sound so serious when nothing goes wrong, but it needs
the Cultural Affairs and the Park Administration to figure out a solution workable
and acceptable to all.
Issue 2: On the Issue of Garbage Disposal
Garbage disposal has been a grave public concern. The museum cannot be
immune from this problem either. Since its opening, the museum and its manage
ment have been plagued by this problem. Early on, the Park Administration and the
museum administrator cooperated in a close manner (in manpower and financial re
sources) to take on the issue head on. With the change of leadership in one of the
partners, the partnership was in practice terminated unofficially. The museum can
only count on its own budget and outsource the sanitary work. A durable partner
ship is only possible when its primary connections are held together firmly.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Abstract (if available)
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
Internal venturing in public agencies
PDF
Determining acceptable seismic risk: A community participation-based approach
PDF
Evaluation of professional services consultants in rural government
PDF
A financial audit model for entrepreneurial governments
PDF
Conversion of health care organizations from non -profit to for -profit status
PDF
Determining risk propensity of government program managers for high risk /high payoff projects
PDF
Assessing United States information assurance *policy response to computer -based threats to national security
PDF
Charter schools' influence on public school administrators' innovative behaviors
PDF
Educational reform for private state -approved schools in California
PDF
Drug treatment providers' organizational responses to implementation of California's Proposition 36
PDF
Detecting the effects social and business pressures on small California trucking firm tax compliance
PDF
Executive spending power: Flexibility in obligation and outlay timing as a measure of federal budgetary and policy control
PDF
Historical perspectives and future horizons of local government managers and the International City /County Management Association
PDF
Care management for the uninsured: A force field analysis of the business case
PDF
Adapting and applying a mission-focused strategic framework for emergency management
PDF
Development of a family risk-factor measure that predicts imminent risk of placement and appropriateness for family-based, wrap -around services
PDF
Do uses of human resource information technology (HRInT) tools in federal organizations improve their human resource management productivity?
PDF
Getting 'how' and 'why' straight: A critical discourse analysis of the National Partnership for Reinventing Government's ideological discourse on information and communication technologies
PDF
Bridled boldness: Reengineering the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Lessons learned
PDF
Banking on the commons: An institutional analysis of groundwater banking programs in California's Central Valley
Asset Metadata
Creator
Huang, Jong-huh
(author)
Core Title
A configuration study of multiagency partnerships as practiced in Taipei City government
School
School of Policy, Planning and Development
Degree
Doctor of Public Administration
Degree Program
Policy, Planning, and Development
Publisher
University of Southern California
(original),
University of Southern California. Libraries
(digital)
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest,Political Science, public administration
Language
English
Contributor
Digitized by ProQuest
(provenance)
Advisor
Clayton, Ross (
committee chair
), Newland, Chester (
committee member
), Richardson, Harry W. (
committee member
)
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c16-151433
Unique identifier
UC11329243
Identifier
3054751.pdf (filename),usctheses-c16-151433 (legacy record id)
Legacy Identifier
3054751-0.pdf
Dmrecord
151433
Document Type
Dissertation
Rights
Huang, Jong-huh
Type
texts
Source
University of Southern California
(contributing entity),
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
(collection)
Access Conditions
The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...
Repository Name
University of Southern California Digital Library
Repository Location
USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA