NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED G. S. Rakovski National Defense Academy Defense Advanced Research Institute INTERORGANIZATIONAL COLLABORATIVE CAPACITY MEASUREMENT MODEL FOR CRISIS MANAGEMENT OPERATIONS Briefing, presented at the International Workshop “Interagency Cooperation in Crisis Management and Disaster Response. Tools and Practices for Training” September 2013 Sofia, Bulgaria CAPT (N) Prof. Yantsislav Yanakiev, D.Sc. Col. Nikola Stoyanov

NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED 2 Theoretical Background  Interorganizational Collaborative Capacity (ICC; Jansen et al., 2008), U.S. Naval Postgraduate School  Definition: Capability of organizations (or a set of organizations) to enter into, develop, and sustain inter- organizational systems in pursuit of collective outcomes  Focused on individual and organizational factors team members bring to the team that influence information sharing and collaboration ICC Examples Individual-Level FactorsOrganizational-Level Factors Need to CollaborateResource Investment in Collaboration Individual Collaborative CapacityStructural Flexibility

NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED MODEL DESCRIPTION (1)  Need to collaborate – A felt need for or motivational energy and effort directed toward collaboration with other coalition members.  Strategic collaboration – Emphasizes establishing and addressing goals for collaboration and considering the interest of other partners in planning. Focus is placed on the role of leadership in addressing interorganizational goals and conferring with leaders of other organizations.  Resource investment in collaboration – Investing, committing, or assigning budget, resources, and personnel to coalition collaboration;

MODEL DESCRIPTION (2)  Structural flexibility – The degree to which respondents perceive that their organization is flexible and responsive, quickly forming and modifying policies, processes, procedures, and partnerships.  Reward systems – Individuals’ perceptions of the consequences of their behavior in terms of their own personal payoffs. The items assess the degree to which collaborative work, activities, and talents result in rewards, career advancement, and promotion.  Metrics for collaboration – The degree to which an organization has identified or established measurement criteria and performance standards to assess collaboration efforts. NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED

MODEL DESCRIPTION (3)  Information sharing norms – Lateral mechanisms and lateral processes within the organization that provide norms for information sharing. Higher scores reflect organizations with stronger norms for greater information sharing.  Collaborative learning – The degree to which the organization commits resources to training, works with coalition partners to identify lessons learned, and develops strong norms for learning from other partners.  Social capital – The degree to which organizational members take the initiative to build relationships and know who to contact within other partner organizations. NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED

MODEL DESCRIPTION (4)  Individual collaborative capacity – Skills, capabilities, expertise, understanding, and knowledge of other partners’ work; willingness to engage in shared decision- making and collaboration.  Barriers to collaboration – Aspects of history, individual collaborative capacity, role conflict, policies, and unique requirements that create barriers to effective collaboration. A high score on this scale indicates more barriers to collaboration.  Support to Collaboration Team – Assesses the degree of support and authority given to cooperative teams by the higher organization. NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED

SCALES AND RELIABILITIES SCALES AND RELIABILITIES, (Yanakiev, Hunter, Sutton, 2011) α Scale (# items)U.S.BGR Need to Collaborate (3) Strategic Collaboration (5) Resource Investment in Collaboration (3) Structural Flexibility (4) Reward Systems (4) Metrics for Collaboration (2) Information Sharing Norms (3) Collaborative Learning (3) Social Capital (2) Individual Collaborative Capacity (7) Barriers to Collaboration (5) Support to Collaboration Team (2).70.74

RESULTS  Questionnaire adaptation shows high reliability of measurement (Cronbach’ Alfa: 0,691-0,870)  Research’s results would be useful for improving military E&T regarding interaction with non-military organizations to shape of: (1) positive adjustment to information shearing between partners as a factor for organizational effectiveness’ increasing; (2) positive adjustment for collaboration and better understanding interdependence between partners.  The mеmethod can be applied for collaborative organizations readiness assessment before operation, for basic problem domain identification and E&T focus for underpin the identified weaknesses. NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED

Literature  Jansen, E., Hocevar, S.P., Rendon, R.G., & Thomas, G.F. (2008). Interorganizational collaborative capacity: Development of a database to refine instrumentation and explore patterns. Monterey, CA: Naval Postgraduate School, Acquisition Research Program.  Galbraith, J.R. (2002). Designing organizations: An executive briefing on strategy, structure, and process. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, IncMarks, M.A., Mathieu J., & Zaccaro S. J. (2001). A temporally based framework and taxonomy of team processes. Academy of Management Review, 26,  Hunter, A.E. (2010, January). Omni Fusion 2009 Survey Data and Observations. Presented to the Battle Command Science and Technology Operational Working Group, Aberdeen, MD.  Yanakiev, Y. Arwen E. Hunter, and Janet L. Sutton (2011). “Understanding Factors that Influence Coalition Teamwork”. Proceedings of the Symposium of NATO Research and Technology Organization SAS-081/RSY on “Analytical Support to Defence Transformation”, Sofia, April 2010, Proceedings available online from: 34.doc 34.doc  Y. Yanakiev, & J.S. Horton (Eds.), Improving Organisational Effectiveness of Coalition Operations. RTO-TR-HFM-163 AC/323(HFM-163)TP/476. Neuilly-Sur-Seine, France: NATO STO, NATO/PfP UNCLASSIFIED

DEFENSE ADVANCED RESEARCH INSTITUTE Thank you for your attention! For contacts: CAPT (N) Prof. Yantsislav Yanakiev, D.Sc. Tel. 359 (2) Fax: 359 (2)