Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=ujst20
ISSN: 1556-8318 (Print) 1556-8334 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujst20
How to create functioning collaboration in
theory and in practice – practical experiences of
collaboration when planning public transport
systems
Fredrik Pettersson & Robert Hrelja
To cite this article: Fredrik Pettersson & Robert Hrelja (2020) How to create functioning collaboration in theory and in practice – practical experiences of collaboration when planning public transport systems, International Journal of Sustainable Transportation, 14:1, 1-13, DOI: 10.1080/15568318.2018.1517842
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/15568318.2018.1517842
© 2018 Fredrik Pettersson and Robert
Hrelja. Published by Taylor & Francis. Published online: 11 Oct 2018.
Submit your article to this journal Article views: 2183
View related articles View Crossmark data
How to create functioning collaboration in theory and in practice
– practical
experiences of collaboration when planning public transport systems
Fredrik Petterssona,b and Robert Hreljab,c a
Transport & Roads, Lund University, SE-221 00 Lund, Sweden;bK2—The Swedish Knowledge Centre for Public Transport, SE-222 36 Lund, Sweden;cVTI/Swedish National Road and Transport Research Institute, SE-581–95 Link€oping, Sweden
ABSTRACT
The creation of an efficient public transport system increasingly requires collaboration between inde-pendent organizations. Institutional reforms in Europe have created governance situations where col-laboration between organizations is a critical issue, and examples include the integration of transport and land-use planning and the planning of large public transport projects. The organizational context of public transport, with several formal, discrete organizations that need to collaborate, raises ques-tions about how functioning collaboraques-tions can be accomplished. This paper examines how to create functioning collaboration between organizations in the public transport sector. We depart from a the-ory of collaboration as a stepwise trust-building process, and we present results from a comparative case study of collaboration in two Swedish public transport projects. The results show some of the prerequisites that must be in place in order for the collaboration to work, but also the boundaries of what collaborative approaches can bring about. Conditions such as honest, open, and inclusive dialog between stakeholders and resources in the form of finance, knowledge, mandate, and leadership are important. While there is no guarantee that this will lead to differences in interests being resolved, the results indicate that it improves the chances of finding compromises that all of the involved stake-holders can accept, especially if favorable conditions for collaboration are established at an early stage of the planning process. Building on these findings, we suggest some practical recommendations for improving collaboration in future public transport projects. These practical recommendations are aimed at improving the handling of unavoidable conflicts in collaboration in a constructive way.
ARTICLE HISTORY Received 2 November 2017 Revised 23 August 2018 Accepted 27 August 2018 KEYWORDS Collaboration; public transport; planning; governance; roles of organisations; case study research 1. Introduction
Institutional reforms in western European public transport systems have made it more difficult to establish fully func-tioning public transport systems due to organizational frag-mentation that might result in coordination problems, for instance, between public transport authorities, operators, and local authorities, among others (O’Sullivan & Patel,
2004; van de Velde, 1999; van de Velde and Wallis, 2013). This means that the planning of public transport systems is characterized by complexities due to the involvement of multiple organizations and a wide range of experts and stakeholders, often with varying perspectives (Bruijn &
Veeneman, 2009; Olesen, 2014). To plan and implement
efficient public transport therefore requires the need for the collective action of organizations with different responsibil-ities and driven by different rationalresponsibil-ities (Olesen, 2014; Pettersson, 2018). Successful collaboration between several
formal, discrete organizations – each with its own budget
and area of responsibility – working across organizational boundaries on shared priorities and implementation, is therefore critical (Hrelja, Monios, Rye, Isaksson, & Scholten,
2017; Meyer, Campbell, Leach, & Coogan,2005).
The funding and delivery of major public transport infra-structure projects, and what to do when responsibility for the provision of different aspects of public transport (e.g., operations, infrastructure, information) is formally divided between different organizations, are examples of issues requiring collaboration (Rye, Monios, Hrelja, & Isaksson,
2018). Major public transport projects are also often moti-vated by goals of “sustainable development” or urban devel-opment and are therefore part of a larger urban planning context in which different organizations need to work together and overcome organizational boundaries and sec-toral areas. The integration of regional public transport planning and local land-use planning has also been identi-fied as a key collaborative “hotspot”. More specifically, the need for collaboration in this area often arises out of ten-sions between local-level priorities and control of land-use planning, which clash with a more strategic regional approach to transport planning aiming to achieve urban and regional development patterns that support public transport
use (Hrelja, 2015; Hrelja et al., 2017; Olesen, 2012;
Pettersson & Frisk,2016). Another key issue when establish-ing efficient public transport systems concerns how to
pro-vide “seamless” transport services within and across
CONTACTFredrik Pettersson fredrik.pettersson@tft.lth.se
ß 2018 Fredrik Pettersson and Robert Hrelja. Published by Taylor & Francis.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way.
2020, VOL. 14, NO. 1, 1–13
transport modes in order to facilitate the use of the public
transport systems (Berman, Smith, & Bauer, 2005;
O’Sullivan & Patel,2004).
In summary, the organizational context of public trans-port, with several formal, discrete organizations that need to collaborate, raises questions about how functioning collabo-rations can be accomplished. In practice, collaboration has proven to be a challenging task because of the fragmented governance context where decision-making capacity is dis-persed among different organizations and different
adminis-trative levels (Sørensen & Longva, 2011; Rivasplata,
Hiroyuki, & Smith, 2012). The key empirical problem that this paper will shed light on is how to achieve functioning collaboration when planning public transport infrastructure projects. Our ambition is, however, to use this empirical area to also draw more general conclusions of interest for collaboration in other empirical areas of relevance for the planning of public transport systems as outlined above. Empirically, this paper presents results from a comparative case study of collaboration in two Swedish public transport projects – the planning of a light rail project in Stockholm (the extension of Tv€arbanan to Sickla) and the planning of a major public transport hub in Gothenburg (Korsv€agen). Both cases are examples of highly complex planning proc-esses involving various public and private organizations, thus stressing the importance of functioning collaboration.
To be able to draw more general conclusions about col-laborations in empirical areas of relevance for the planning of public transport systems outlined above, we also need to better understand collaboration conceptually. The under-standing of how functioning collaborations can be created in the context of the public transport sector is limited (Hrelja, Pettersson, & Westerdahl, 2016. Seesection 2 for a more in-depth discussion). There is little research on the collabor-ation between key organizcollabor-ations in public transport, although evidence shows that public transport governance in many cases remains fragmented and is characterized by sub-optimization (Berman et al., 2005; Hanson, 2013; Rivasplata et al.,2012; Sørensen and Longva,2011). While public trans-port research has identified some critical areas in which public transport organizations need to collaborate, it has only just begun to analyze the qualities that make it possible for organizations to collaborate efficiently, even though the literature indicates that dialog and shared goals are import-ant. Previous public transport research typically calls for “collective visions”, and “greater dialogue” between organi-zations (e.g., Berman et al., 2005; Rivasplata et al., 2012), causing some researchers to claim that there is a need for more deliberative governance approaches to coordination challenges (e.g., Hrelja et al., 2017; McLeod, Scheurer, & Curtis, 2017; Pettersson, 2018). However, there are several unanswered questions, for example, how can collaboration be understood conceptually, and what in theory are the essential qualities for successful collaboration on pub-lic transport?
In a previous theoretical paper, based on a literature review (Hrelja et al., 2016), we discussed these questions and provided a detailed conceptual analysis of how best to
achieve functioning collaboration in the public transport sector. Based on research in other fields (e.g., Conteh,2013; Gray, 1989; Ostrom, 1990; Thomson & Perry, 2006), we defined collaboration as an attempt to overcome problems with collective action and to transform a situation in which the various organizations operate independently into a situ-ation in which they act in concert to achieve shared objec-tives. However, empirical studies of collaboration in the public transport area are needed, and thus in this paper we analyze actual collaboration in the planning of public trans-port projects. The aim of this paper is to contribute to cur-rent knowledge on how to create functioning collaboration between organizations in the public transport area, which would improve the chances of creating functioning public transport. This paper extends our understanding of the necessary conditions for functioning collaboration in the public transport sector by testing and further developing the
analytical framework developed in Hrelja et al. (2016)
through analysis of real world experiences of collaboration. By contrasting the collaborative experience in the two cases, where the organizations involved have had different experi-ences, and by discussing these results in terms of the quality of interaction between organizations, we can draw analytic-ally generalizable lessons from the cases and can develop the theory of collaboration presented in Hrelja et al. (2016). 2. A theory of collaboration
The lack of research and conceptual understanding of col-laboration in the public transport area was, as already men-tioned, the motivation for our previous theoretical paper (Hrelja et al., 2016). The analytical framework developed in that paper was an attempt to improve our understanding of this key issue in public transport research. The analytical framework in Hrelja et al. (2016) was based on a literature review of theoretical insights regarding collaboration from two other research fields of analytical relevance for public transport (because of the few studies on collaboration in the public transport literature). These fields were “collaborative planning and governance” and “business studies”.
Choosing these two research fields was justified by the institutional changes that have taken place in many coun-tries in recent decades. The choice of research fields is dis-cussed in length in Hrelja et al. (2016), so only the briefest justification is provided here. Examples of important institu-tional changes in recent years, especially in Europe, are deregulation, privatization, and the introduction of competi-tion. Public transport has become a service supplied by a market or involving profit-driven organizations. Thus, it is relevant to examine how collaboration has been analyzed in the field of“business studies”. The business studies literature (e.g., Brunsson & Sahlin-Andersson, 2000; Vargo & Lusch,
2004; Gebauer, Johnson, & Enquist, 2010; Lindberg & Czarniawska, 2006) focuses, for instance, on new forms of control and on the consequences of public organizations increasingly functioning as private, profitmaking companies. Despite deregulation and privatization, public authorities usually retain the power to define transport services – for
example, the definition of the social function of public transport – and the control of public transport is in most countries divided between several public organizations. In view of this, it is relevant to examine how collaboration has been analyzed in the field, referred to here as “governance and planning”. Governance and planning research often focuses on state-funded organizations at various levels and with different areas of responsibility because of their discip-linary links to political science or planning-related subjects.
In the “collaborative planning and governance literature”
(e.g., Booher & Innes, 2002; Healy, 2003; Huxham, 2003;
Innes, 2004; Innes & Booher, 2003; Margerum, 2002;
Thomson & Perry, 2006; Winkler, 2006 , a common issue concerns how collaboration in terms of governance or net-work control is becoming standard at the expense of trad-itional hierarchical government control. This transition is driving much of the need for collaboration, and it also gen-erates demands for other forms of control.
The critical lesson from both the “governance and
planning” and “business studies” literature is that collabor-ation is a learning process (e.g., Blatner, Carroll, Daniel, &
Walker, 2001, Daniels & Walker 2001) and should, as
already mentioned, be defined as an attempt to overcome problems by collective action and to change a situation in which the parties would otherwise act independently into a situation where they act together to achieve shared objectives (Hrelja et al., 2016). The collaboration process involves the establishment of joint rules and structures that govern the nature of the relationship and the behavior of the organiza-tions (Conteh, 2013; Thomson & Perry, 2006). Given this,
we would argue that the word “co-action” better captures
the essential qualities of the interaction between
organiza-tions than the word “collaboration”. In co-action, formal
independent organizations investigate joint benefits and achieve more than if each had acted independently. The opposite of co-action is a form of interaction that can be described as negotiation – where organizations try to gain an advantage in competition with other organizations (Booher & Innes, 2002; Innes & Booher, 2004). This indi-cates that there are qualities in the interaction between
organizations that are important for developing
“functioning” collaborations. For us, fully functioning collab-oration is taken to mean the inputs and measures perceived as practical and functional in setting up collaborations. We would argue that establishing a “functioning” collaboration is therefore a situated, social learning activity, and decisions about how to engage in collaboration are based on practical judgments situated in specific contexts. The research field
therefore does not involve legal cases with clear verdicts, so exact collaborative qualities cannot be pinned down, only approximated. However, below we discuss collaborative qualities that in the literature have been identified as important for collaboration that can be described as “functioning”.
Hrelja et al. (2016) also identified “building blocks” of collaboration by structuring important “collaborative qual-ities” identified in previous research necessary for co-action into three stages: co-action conditions, secondary values, and primary values (see Table 1). The different stages com-prise key qualities of the interaction that are important for successful collaboration, but they also illustrate that there is an important issue concerning sequence. Primary values (actual collective action) are contingent on the achievement of secondary values, which in turn can only be achieved if the co-action conditions are met. Hence the term “building block” – the qualities build on one another in sequence. It is hard to pin down exact collaborative qualities because of the context-dependent character of collaboration. However, in the literature the need for dialog and trust-building is com-monly brought up (e.g., Healy, 2003; Innes, 2004; Innes & Booher, 2003), as is the importance of establishing common objectives and mutual understanding of one another and using that understanding as a basis for actions that result in
organizations co-acting (e.g., Margerum, 2002;
Winkler, 2006).
As in any type of collaboration process, conflicts are likely to arise (Huxham, 2003). The need to deal with con-flicts is thus an inherent characteristic of collaboration. This follows from multiple organizations being involved, which results in a dispersed, polycentric power distribution and often a lack of clear hierarchical formal rules for interaction (Winkler,2006). Therefore in many cases establishing effect-ive collaborations can be said to be about creating effecteffect-ive
governance through networks (Thomson & Perry, 2006).
Collaborative processes in public transport therefore need to be managed in ways that take full account of key co-action conditions such as resource asymmetries in finances, know-ledge, mandate, and leadership (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Huxham, 2003; Huxham & Vangen,2000). Secondary values of collaboration, such as understanding, mutual trust, and engagement (Glasbergen & Driessen, 2005), can only be achieved if the co-action conditions are favorable. If the sec-ondary values are achieved, we argue that this initiates a learning process through which primary values such as joint problem formulation, agreement on how to act, decisions for joint action (Ansell & Gash, 2008; Conteh, 2013), and
Table 1. Co-action as a step-wise trust-building and learning process.
Co-action conditions Secondary values Primary values
– Impossibility of any of the parties achieving
the desired outcome on their own – Understanding the motivations and roles of otherorganizations – Joint problem definition and shared objectives – Honest, open, respectful and inclusive dialog
to investigate mutual benefits – Mutual respect – Agreement on how to act in relation to the subjectof the collaboration
– Action orientation – Trust – Joint action, enabling achievements that the
individual organizations would not have been capable of alone
– Resources, for example finances, knowledge, mandate, leadership
– Engagement – Shared creation of value where different parties produce services or products
the shared creation of value can develop (Gebauer et al.,
2010; Lindberg & Czarniawska, 2006).
However, to describe a functioning collaboration as net-work-based co-action is to recognize that there is an inher-ent conflict when it comes to collaboration. The increasing emphasis on the need for functioning collaboration within the public transport area, set against strong existing tenden-cies to emphasize each individual organization’s results, boundaries, and internal objectives (e.g., Brunsson & Sahlin-Andersson 2000), requires a balancing act from the collabo-rating organizations, who have to take responsibility for shared actions that might not necessarily be to their direct benefit (Hrelja et al., 2016). Besides differences in inter-organizational objectives, there might be conflicting intra-organizational objectives, as well as changes in objectives over time, as highlighted by Winkler (2006).
In this paper, we will use the two case studies to investi-gate whether the theoretical assumptions outlined above about collaboration as a stepwise trust-building and learning process correspond to the real-world experiences of collab-oration. Three research questions were examined: (i) What in practice were the important collaborative qualities (or lack of qualities) in the two planning processes? (ii) Do the collaborative qualities described in the theoretical framework correspond to the real-world experiences of collaboration in the two cases? and (iii) What practical recommendations on how to establish and sustain a functioning collaboration can be drawn from the two cases for future collaboration in the public transport area?
The two cases exemplify collaborations in the planning of major public transport infrastructure projects, and they were chosen because they provide examples of very different experiences of collaboration. The differences make it pos-sible to discuss and further develop the theory of collaboration.
We begin the next section with an account of the meth-ods and data sources used in the study. In the empirical part, we describe the important collaborative qualities (or lack of qualities) in practice in the two planning processes. In the case analysis section, we then discuss how the collab-orative qualities described in the theory of collaboration cor-respond to the real-world experiences of collaboration in the two cases. We also discuss the findings obtained from ana-lysis of the cases and give practical recommendations on how to establish and sustain functioning collaboration in the public transport area. Finally, conclusions are drawn. 3. Research method
As stated above, collaboration is clearly influenced by con-textual factors. This calls for case studies because with the case study method one can study collaboration in context (George and Bennett, 2005; Yin, 2009). The case study can be seen as a pedagogical tool (Fischler, 2000) that produces the type of context-dependent knowledge and experience that is important to learning processes and expertise (Flyvbjerg, 2007). It has been claimed that (planning) praxis
is always contingent on context-dependent judgment
(Flyvbjerg,2004). The two cases analyzed in this paper thus offer a context-dependent story about collaboration that hopefully can elicit critical thinking and action among prac-titioners and provide novel perspectives on collaboration in the public transport area. A benefit to focusing on two cases is that it made it possible to study working practises in depth and to address causal mechanisms in the context of individual cases in detail (George and Bennett,2005, p. 19). This allows a case study to serve as a basis for drawing more general conclusions given that the cases in question are empirically illustrative (Flyvbjerg, 1998, 2007). As with all qualitative studies, the findings are not statistically gener-alizable. Instead of answering questions regarding how many and how much, the study answers questions of how and why, which can be of use when discussing the transferability of our findings to other cases. It is the analytical arguments that we make that form the basis of the transferability of our findings to other cases and that make up our contribu-tions to the scientific discussion about collaboration. The general conclusions that are reached build on the concept of analytical generalizations (Yin, 2009), which means that the findings from specific cases are discussed in relation to find-ings in existing research from the field. Empirically based analytical lines of reasoning from the cases studied can then serve as the foundation for discussions of general analytical relevance (George & Bennett, 2005; Yin, 2009). In the pre-sent study, this involved relating the findings from the two cases to the theory developed in Hrelja et al. (2016). Thus, theory is tested and developed from the cases (George & Bennett,2005), which in turn can help other researchers to formulate hypotheses for further research about collabor-ation and can help practitioners to deduce whether or not the findings are transferable to other cases.
The research presented in this paper followed from a joint research project together with the public organizations involved in the planning of the two public transport proj-ects. The rationale for the choice was that, according to the representatives from the public sector, the two cases provide examples of very different experiences of collaboration. The planning process of extension of the light rail line Tv€arbanan in Stockholm was described largely as a swift and rather uncomplicated collaborative process, whereas the planning of Korsv€agen in Gothenburg was described as more difficult, involving numerous conflicts that had to be overcome.
3.1. Introducing the cases 3.1.1. Korsv€agen
Korsv€agen is a city square and is an important node for all modes of traffic and is a major public transport hub in the events district of Gothenburg. Many important venues and visitor attractions are located on or near Korsv€agen, includ-ing the Swedish Exhibition Centre and Liseberg (a major
amusement park). The remaking of Korsv€agen is linked to
the construction of the West Link, a planned rail tunnel underneath central Gothenburg with three stations, of which Korsv€agen is one. The planning of Korsv€agen and its
interaction with the surrounding urban environment is therefore of great importance. The Swedish Transport Administration is planning and building the rail tunnel in close cooperation with the City of Gothenburg. The City of Gothenburg is responsible for the design of the station area above ground and its adaptation to the rest of the city in the city’s land use and transport planning.
Organisations such as the City of Gothenburg, V€asttrafik (the regional public transport company), the Swedish Transport Administration, the Swedish Exhibition Centre, and Liseberg have stakes in the project. The planning pro-cess was started in late 2012 and was completed in late in 2016. The involvement of many parties with various man-dates and different intra-organizational processes along with the importance of Korsv€agen, both as a transport node and as an urban space, has made planning complex, controver-sial, and politically sensitive. This is also what makes Korsv€agen an analytically interesting project to study. According to officers involved in the planning process, it was difficult to find functioning forms of collaboration. 3.1.2. Tv€arbanan
The case study of Tv€arbanan covers the extension of a light rail line from the southern district of Hammarby in the city of Stockholm, across the city boundary to Nacka municipal-ity, located east of the city of Stockholm. The line is being extended by about 800 m, and a new station will be built in Sickla (an urban renewal area located in the municipality of Nacka) to integrate the light rail system with a regional rail system (Saltsj€obanan) and to provide access to Sickla shop-ping center. The planning process for the project was carried out quickly and construction commenced in 2015, only 1.5 years after the political decision to build was taken.
Collaboration between Stockholm County Council (which is the public transport authority in the region) and the municipality of Nacka was of key importance. In parallel, the local authority, Nacka Municipality, which is co-financ-ing parts of the project, is also plannco-financ-ing to build about 14,000 dwellings in central Nacka. Other parties in the col-laboration are the City of Stockholm, Atrium Ljungberg (a real estate development company), the Swedish Transport Administration and business owners in the area. The project is analytically interesting to study because officers involved in the planning process described it as smooth and function-ing well despite befunction-ing complex both technically and in terms of the planning context.
3.2. Description of the interview study
Thirteen interviews were conducted in autumn 2015 and spring 2016. For Tv€arbanan, we interviewed seven
individu-als – including three from the planning office at Nacka
Municipality, one politician from Nacka Municipality, one representative from Stockholm County Council, one repre-sentative from an environmental NGO, and one representa-tive from the real estate development company Atrium Ljungberg. For Korsv€agen, we conducted interviews with
one representative each from the Swedish Exhibition Centre, the Swedish Transport Administration, V€asttrafik, and Liseberg amusement park and two interviews with represen-tatives from the City of Gothenburg. For details of the titles and roles of the interviewees, see Appendix 1. In total, we interviewed representatives from eight public and private organizations (or 12 if one takes into account that some interviewees represented different departments within the same organization). All of the interviewees had key roles in the planning process of the two cases. The interviewees from Nacka Municipality, Stockholm County Council, Atrium Ljungberg, the City of Gothenburg, the Swedish Transport Administration, and V€asttrafik were all involved in making critical decisions and had detailed and specific knowledge about the planning processes. The interviewees from the environmental NGO, the Swedish Exhibition Centre, and Liseberg provided important perspectives on the
planning processes by key stakeholder organizations
involved in the planning processes. The choice of organiza-tions to include in the study, and which persons to interview in each organization, was made in an iterative process. The first interviewee for each case was identified by the represen-tatives from the public sector involved in writing the research application for the research project. During the interviews, we then asked the interviewees to help us iden-tify key organizations and key persons to approach.
We used a semi-structured interview guide with questions divided into different themes. The interview guide included both specific questions on details of the particular processes (e.g., timing of events and processes, project status, etc.) and open-ended questions asking the interviewees to reflect on various aspects of collaboration (e.g., concerning roles and mandates, objectives, and communication between stake-holders). The interviews, which were recorded and tran-scribed, typically lasted between one and two hours. In total the transcriptions comprised more than 220 pages of text. The transcripts were analyzed using Kvale’s (1996) three-stage content analysis approach. First, the transcriptions were coded according to certain categories linked to the the-oretical framework. Next, the coded pieces were analyzed according to a subset of issues and topics that are consid-ered in the results section. In the third step, some state-ments, included verbatim in the results section, were singled out as being either particularly interesting for the topic or for managing to express or convey something that many respondents alluded to.
4. Case study results
4.1. Shared objectives and joint rules and structures – the ideal image of success factors for collaboration The interviews began with questions about the respondents’ practical experiences of collaboration, both from past proj-ects and in the specific case project. The interviewees’ per-ceptions, in addition to being seen as practically grounded experiences of necessary conditions for functioning collabor-ation, can also be seen as ideal and normative views on
interviewees in both case studies reported to be important in order to achieve functioning collaboration. One recurring theme arising in the interviews was the importance of the “early stage” of planning processes. The interviewees said that it is critical to create shared objectives early or to create,
as one interviewee expressed it, a “common understanding”
of the project, which in turn also requires an understanding of other organizations’ interests and roles, here described by an interviewee involved in Korsv€agen:
Collaboration is not only important; it is necessary for a project to succeed. The key is to work together in the early stages with both external organisations and internal organisations to gain an understanding of what to do or what we want to do, but also to get an understanding for, and knowledge of, how our surroundings perceive the investment we will implement. (Interviewee 12, Liseberg amusement park)
The opportunities to create functioning collaboration also required each organization to have clear internal goals and good internal collaboration among the different units or departments within the individual organization, according the interviewees.
Another recurring theme was that interviewees from both cases believed that an important condition for effective col-laboration is the ability to create joint rules and structures that govern the behavior of the organizations early in the planning process. This might include creating clear project directives that define the objectives of the project for all par-ticipating organizations. It also means that important and potentially controversial issues need to be identified and, if possible, solved at an early stage. One such key issue con-cerns sorting out the financial commitments for different parts of the project among the organizations involved.
The interviewees’ ideal perceptions of collaboration influ-enced how they judged their experiences of collaboration in the planning processes for Tv€arbanan and Korsv€agen. It is in real situations, when facing problems that must be handled, that collaborative ideals are challenged and the crit-ical conditions for functional collaboration are made clear. We continue by reporting how well the interviewees believed that they had managed to realize the collaborative ideals in the Tv€arbanan and Korsv€agen projects. We focus specifically on the interviewees’ opinions of how well they managed to create shared objectives and whether or not joint rules and structures that governed the behavior of the organizations were established in the two projects. This emphasis is because these themes were so prominent in the interviewees’ ideals about collaboration.
4.2. Specific experiences of collaboration in the tv€arbanan project
Creating shared objectives?
The decision to build Tv€arbanan was preceded by a debate spanning several decades (Interviewee 6, Stockholm County Council). Several different options were discussed, and a previous proposal for a much greater extension to the Tv€arbanan light rail system was blocked by Stockholm County Council for many years (Interviewee 5, Nacka
Municipality). However, a breakthrough was made when the proposal to extend the line only to Sickla was put forward. Initially, the proposal was developed by Atrium Ljungberg, a real estate development company that had acquired indus-trial estates in the Sickla area in the late 1990s (Interviewee 7, Atrium Ljungberg). The idea for extending the light rail to Sickla, as part of a process to regenerate the area and to develop offices, shopping facilities, and housing on former industrial estates, coincided neatly with municipal interests in developing the area (Interviewees 1, 2, & 5, Nacka Municipality). The project was also solidly anchored with other important stakeholders, including Stockholm County Council, and one interviewee from an environmental NGO (Interviewee 4, Nacka Environmental Council) argued that in their opinion the extension to Tv€arbanan should have been built at least a decade ago.
In addition, several interviewees from Nacka Municipality (Interviewees 2, 3, & 5) said that the rebuilding of Slussen, a key public transport hub in central Stockholm, was import-ant because the lengthy construction process at Slussen (planned to begin in 2017 and last several years) was expected to create serious problems for residents in Nacka commuting to and from Stockholm. The extension of Tv€arbanan thus became an important solution to the prob-lem of minimizing inconvenience from the construction work at Slussen (for which Stockholm County Council was responsible) and of maintaining a functioning transport sys-tem for commuters working in central Stockholm. This def-inition of the problem, that there was a pressing need to increase public transport capacity in light of the expected problems caused by rebuilding Slussen, also enjoyed support from citizens:
There was a strong common motivation from many different parties about accomplishing something, to accomplish something pretty fast. (Interviewee 5, Nacka Municipality)
Nonetheless, the planning process was not without con-flict. The most critical conflict arose in an appeal against the part of the detailed development plan that proposed moving student housing. Moreover, conflict over technical details, e.g., the design of stations and the specific solutions for inte-grating with the existing public transport system, had to be handled during the course of the process (Interviewee 3,
Nacka Municipality, and Interviewee 4, Nacka
Environmental Council). These conflicts were successfully resolved and did not spill over into politics, and, in general, the decision to extend Tv€arbanan was not politically
contro-versial. Interviewee 5, a politician in Nacka
Municipality explained:
From the political side, we experienced it as a rather straightforward project. But I understand that it has been extremely complicated technically.
The broad political support, at both the municipal and county level, constituted a firm basis for the planning by
establishing shared objectives (Interviewee 3, Nacka
Municipality, and Interviewee 6, Stockholm County
Council). In Nacka Municipality, the political consensus sent a clear message to the officers that the project was
prioritized, which allowed for swift and uncomplicated deci-sion making in all of the necessary internal political forums.
Joint rules and structures that govern the behavior of the organizations?
According to the interviewees, the interactions between the organizations involved in the project were characterized by clarity and understanding concerning responsibilities and roles. An important condition for the collaboration was that Atrium Ljungberg controlled a key resource, namely owner-ship of land. Nacka Municipality controlled the formal plan-ning instruments, and as such functioned as the formal leader of the planning process, but the ownership of land was also a very influential factor. Atrium Ljungberg handed over land for the light rail corridor to the municipality
with-out cost, thus in practice co-financing the project
(Interviewee 7, Atrium Ljungberg). While strictly speaking playing an informal role, in its capacity as a large property owner Atrium Ljungberg had great influence on the early stages of the planning process (Interviewees 1 & 2, Nacka Municipality, and Interviewee 7, Atrium Ljungberg).
For a number of emerging issues, agreement had to be successively developed over time, but from early in the plan-ning process there was clear agreement on who should pay for what between Nacka, Stockholm County Council, and Atrium Ljungberg (Interviewee 1, Nacka Municipality). Interviewee 3, a former project manager, explained that Nacka Municipality was very conscious of establishing clar-ity concerning economic liabilities between the parties as early as possible. Clarity concerning economic liabilities in this case also included agreeing on responsibilities for
unforeseen costs (Interviewee 6, Stockholm
County Council).
Furthermore, according to several interviewees a “joined-up” planning process for transport (rail) and land use in planning the extension of Tv€arbanan was a facilitator for collaboration. A change in legislation in 2010 allowed for such an integrated transport and land use planning process. According to several interviewees (e.g., Interviewees 1, 2, and 5, Nacka Municipality), one important result of the joined-up planning process was that the collaboration was characterized by clear “rules of the game”. This was a new way of working, but it functioned well, and one important aspect highlighted was that it entailed clarity concerning the roles and mandates of the different organizations. This inte-grated planning allowed for continuous anchoring of objec-tives with all of the key organizations. The importance of meeting forums and of clearly establishing roles and man-dates as a condition for collaboration was also stressed. According to Interviewee 2, the project manager for Tv€arbanan in Nacka Municipality, the meetings regarding Tv€arbanan were characterized by clarity concerning their decision-making function. This was manifested in the people who attended the meetings being aware of the limits of their mandate. A typology of different types of meetings was established, including steering committee meetings and plan-ning meetings, where each category of meeting involved relevant organizations. This was important in order to make clear:
… who should be included and what functions [the meetings] had. (Interviewee 2, Nacka Municipality)
The clarity on formal meeting forms allowed the pace of planning to be maintained by establishing action points from week to week and by deciding on themes for the meet-ings to clearly address specific issues that needed to be handled in order to move the planning forward. In addition, according to several interviewees (1, 2, & 3, Nacka Municipality), there were important dialogs between officers on a day-to-day basis:
It was never difficult or weird to pursue this informal contact if you had a small question or needed help. [… .] These quick little phone calls were very important. (Interviewee 1, Nacka Municipality)
This dialog resulted in an understanding of the different conditions not only in the participating organizations, for instance, concerning resources in terms of manpower, but also internal decision-making processes in other organiza-tions. Interviewee 1 argued that it is important to under-stand that internal decision-making processes take different amounts of time due to both resource availability and the nature of the organization:
… it can take different amounts of time … [at the Municipality] we are ultimately dependent on decisions to go through all the committees, and it might be difficult for them at Stockholm County Council to sit and wait for this. It’s like different cogwheels. Stockholm County Council has got a large organisation working only with this question, while we always have to handle a lot of different questions so we cannot always give priority to this. (Interviewee 1, Nacka Municipality)
The dialog also resulted in sharing of knowledge, which can be interpreted as indicating the presence of trust between the organizations. For Nacka Municipality, which had no experience of integrated planning of large-scale pub-lic transport and urban development projects, the access to knowledge and expertise at Stockholm County Council con-cerning the handling of public transport-specific issues, such as station design, accessibility for the disabled, etc., was very important (Interviewees 1, 2, & 3, Nacka Municipality). 4.3. Specific experiences of collaboration in korsv€agen Creating shared objectives?
While an agreement on objectives was achieved for the Tv€arbanan project, it was significantly more difficult to cre-ate shared objectives for the Korsv€agen project. One inter-viewee from the City of Gothenburg described how:
[the Swedish Transport Administration] builds a tunnel in a city, but we [the City of Gothenburg] build the city with a tunnel. We always have different perspectives [… ]. Everyone has their priorities, and we [the Traffic Office] somehow have to cover a great many questions about the city. (Interviewee 8, City of Gothenburg)
Under such circumstances, the interviewee stressed that it was important to understand that it was not possible to cre-ate shared objectives. In addition, the City of Gothenburg changed its own objectives during the planning process. One important initial planning condition was that a car tunnel
would be built beneath Korsv€agen. After a revision of the City of Gothenburg’s traffic strategy, which included the new goal of reducing the share of car trips in the city by 25% by 2025, the City of Gothenburg decided in 2015 not to build the tunnel. This decision meant that the design of Korsv€agen now had to consider space requirements for cars at street level. The planning process had to start all over again and, because the decision meant new traffic solutions above ground, other organizations such as V€asttrafik also had to review how the new planning conditions fit their interests. At the time of the interviews, the participating organizations had not reached agreement on what the deci-sion not to build the car tunnel meant for the project:
Actually, all the parties should have sat down to draw up guidelines and objectives for this project, and then looked at what each organisation needs to do to get there. When the decision not to build the car tunnel was made, we should have sat down again. Maybe we even should have had a facilitator who was neutral … (Interviewee 9, V€asttrafik)
In addition, the planning of Korsv€agen is not only a detailed planning process for a new public transport station for the City of Gothenburg, but also part of an urban devel-opment project that aims to integrate the station with the city and to develop new housing and offices around the sta-tion (in contrast to the integrated transport and land use planning in the Tv€arbanan project). This means that there are parallel on-going planning processes, which makes it dif-ficult to delimit “the project” and to decide which organiza-tions are relevant to include. Some of the major events companies, especially Liseberg and the Swedish Exhibition Centre, will clearly be influenced by the design of Korsv€agen, but also by how Korsv€agen is designed as a part of the urban fabric, which is planned by the City of Gothenburg in a parallel process involving an urban devel-opment plan. According to the representatives from Liseberg and the Swedish Exhibition Centre (Interviewees 11 & 13), they do not consider themselves to have been sufficiently involved from the beginning, i.e., in what the interviewees described earlier as “the early stages of planning”.
I’m a spectator. No one from the City of Gothenburg came to ask us beforehand. We were just told that a railway station will be built here under the ground, and they [the City of Gothenburg] are changing a plan that will affect us because we are next door. So, it starts with them saying:’Yes, now we are finished’ [with the plan]. They call us to a meeting and have already thought about where to put the trees and park benches, but no one has spoken to Liseberg or the Swedish Exhibition Centre about our ideas, how we envision our future in 10 years. I say, forget the park benches and trees until we have got the whole picture! (Interviewee 11, the Swedish Exhibition Centre)
Joint rules and structures that govern the behavior of the organizations?
A lack of clarity concerning different meeting forums, their functions, and who should be included was also a problem in the Korsv€agen project according to some inter-viewees (e.g., Interinter-viewees 7 & 9, City of Gothenburg).
I think at the early stage [you need to] define jointly how to work together and who has a mandate for which issues. The earlier in the project that you have shared goals, project
directives, and so on, the better. We omitted this and that is why it sometimes becomes a little difficult [to] define things together. Define the rules of the game as early as possible (Interviewee 8, City of Gothenburg)
There are several potential consequences of this. One consequence is illustrated by some interviewees describing how organizations sometimes found themselves in different “phases” of the process. The interviewee from the Swedish Transport Administration said:
V€asttrafik and the City of Gothenburg feel that we are working quickly. It is questionable given that this [the V€astl€anken rail tunnel] has been planned for 20 years. The planning process is slow. Then the actual implementation goes quickly. We feel that we are in an implementation phase now. We are not in a planning phase. (Interviewee 12, Swedish Transport Administration)
In addition, several interviewees pointed out that a func-tioning collaboration requires continuous dialog, which in turn is favored by continuity of personnel, a continuity that has not existed in all the organizations. This is seen to have had negative consequences:
Dialogue is very important and must start early. Another feature that is very important is continuity, and continuity is also embedded in the people who act in the dialogue. Because the City of Gothenburg has changed its [representative] many times and the Transport Administration has changed its project manager once, I experience this as a major deficiency [… ] Although the written word or the minutes of dialogues include a lot, the [face-to-face] meeting captures more of the feel of what we want to create with the dialogue. If you change personnel, the new person can interpret earlier minutes and wordings in a completely different way than we have done. (Interviewee 13, Liseberg amusement park)
Another complicating factor for collaboration is that there has been uncertainty about whether the participating officials are authorized to represent their organizations:
They [officers from the City of Gothenburg] might say: Would you be able to do this? We then make the change. But the next time we meet they say: We don’t want to do it like this now. It is as if the officers represented in the room don’t have the mandate to make decisions or the authority. I distinguish between authority and mandate. It is much like a manager and leader; I can be given authority, mandate is something I deserve; that people trust me and put confidence [in me]. (Interviewee 12, Swedish Transport Administration)
5. Case analysis and discussion
In this section we discuss the findings from the case studies departing from the three research questions.
5.1. What in practice were the important collaborative qualities (or lack of qualities) in the two
planning processes?
There was general agreement among the interviewees about the most important conditions for functioning collaboration, which somewhat took the form of a recipe for collaboration. The importance of shared objectives and of joint rules and structures for working together was emphasized. The
interviewees also suggested that it was of critical importance to identify, and preferably handle, potentially problematic issues early in the planning process. Otherwise, problems could arise in later planning stages.
While the interviewees expressed similar beliefs about the ideal conditions for collaboration, the case studies provided insights into why and how the specific context in each case resulted in differences in how well collaboration functioned. Both public transport projects were part of a larger urban planning context involving municipalities, regional public transport authorities, national authorities, and property owners. Clearly this made collaboration more complex, but the Tv€arbanan case also illustrates how the urban planning context brought organizations together and how they thus achieved something that each individual organization could not have achieved alone. One condition for this was that Tv€arbanan was not only seen to solve present and future transport needs, and it was also part of an urban planning strategy that connected public transport with urban develop-ments. Additionally, a decisive step towards its implementa-tion occurred when another construcimplementa-tion project in the area was expected to create serious problems for travelers. All organizations got something that they would not have had
they not collaborated in the Tv€arbanan project. In the
Tv€arbanan project the organizations also succeeded early in the planning process in creating clarity about organizational roles and the procedures for collaboration, which also facili-tated shared objectives, on a general level, based on an understanding of other organizations’ interests. However, this does not mean that organizations had exactly the same objectives. Surely, there were conflicts over details, but these were successfully resolved and the organizations could focus on exploring mutual goals and reaping the benefits of work-ing together.
Organisations involved in the planning of Korsv€agen faced similar collaborative difficulties caused by the urban planning context; Korsv€agen was not only a project about a new public transport node, but also part of an urban devel-opment project that aimed to integrate the station with the city and to develop new housing and offices around the sta-tion. However, organizations were less successful in handling the parallel planning processes that this resulted in, and shared objectives were never achieved. In part, this is explained by important objectives being changed during the planning process (when a new traffic strategy was adopted by the City of Gothenburg). This, together with staff turn-over, resulted in differences in opinion concerning aspects such as technical design and space allocation for and inte-gration with other transport modes. The nonparticipation of some organizations in the early phases of the planning pro-cess also prevented the establishment of shared objectives. To conclude, there are several explanations for why shared objectives were never achieved, and together these made it hard for organizations to reach what we in section two described as“co-action”. In co-action, organizations create a shared understanding or shared problem formulation, which results in them co-acting. Co-action, as exemplified by the Tv€arbanan case, does not necessary mean that organizations
have exactly the same objectives. Nor does it mean that there are no conflicts. Instead, it means that organizations investigate mutual benefits and seek justifiable decisions for all partners. The opposite of co-action is a form of inter-action that we have described as negotiation driven (e.g., Booher & Innes, 2002; Innes & Booher, 2003), where self-interested organizations try to maximize individual goal achievement. The reason why the creation of shared objec-tives in the Korsv€agen project failed seems to be that the organizations interacted in ways that can best be described as negotiations in which the involved organizations tried to gain advantages in competition with other organizations.
There were also differences between the projects concern-ing whether and how joint rules and structures for collabor-ation were established, differences that can also partly explain why the involved organizations never managed to create shared objectives in the Korsv€agen case. Joined-up planning when it comes to joint rules for collaboration
pro-vides an interesting contrast between Tv€arbanan and
Korsv€agen. In the planning for Tv€arbanan, the joined-up planning process was important to facilitate agreement on how to act. In contrast, the planning process for Korsv€agen (a detailed development plan for Korsv€agen as a public transport hub, the railway plan for V€astl€anken rail tunnel, and the urban development program for Gothenburg) resulted in a fragmented planning context with different processes in different phases, causing friction between the organizations.
The cases also show how collaboration in the Korsv€agen project was affected by uncertainty about whether the partic-ipating representatives were authorized to represent their organization or not. This had to do with differences in how the organizations involved work and their working condi-tions, especially in politically controlled organizations. Municipal officers clearly had less autonomy and a limited mandate to make decisions compared with the officers from their collaborating counterparts, e.g., the Swedish Transport Administration. The asymmetries in mandate between municipal and Swedish Transport Administration employees were highlighted as an important factor making it more dif-ficult to negotiate decisions.
5.2. Do the collaborative qualities described in the theoretical framework correspond to the real-world experiences of collaboration in the two cases? The interviewees’ practical experience of the conditions for functioning collaboration seem to correspond well with our theory of collaboration, which defines collaboration as a stepwise trust-building and learning process where dialog and trust and the establishment of shared objectives and mutual understanding are important (Hrelja et al., 2016). Interviewees emphasized the importance of understanding the motivations of other organizations when establishing shared objectives (Blatner et al., 2001; Daniels & Walker,
2001) as well as the importance of joint rules and structures that govern the behavior of the organizations (Ansell &
Gash, 2008; Huxham, 2003; Huxham & Vangen, 2000; Thomson & Perry,2006).
The interviewees emphasized that it is important to have formally decided agreements, such as project directives. However, they also stressed that there is an informal aspect concerning the shared interpretation of formally decided rules that develops successively in dialog between individu-als. As one interviewee said, staff turnover made collabor-ation more difficult because new staff often interpreted written directives differently from the individuals originally involved in making the decisions. This shows that it is
diffi-cult to “rig” collaboration through formal agreements if
these are not based on a shared understanding of both the content and the forms for collaboration. It also corroborates findings from previous studies (e.g., Thomson & Perry,
2006) emphasizing the importance of striking a balance
between formal aspects, such as organizational conditions and contractual relationships, as well as informal aspects such as personal relationships and implied agreements between the actors in the process.
In our collaboration theory (Hrelja et al.,2016), we
iden-tified “building blocks” of collaboration that structure
important “collaborative qualities” that are necessary in
three stages – co-action conditions, secondary values, and primary values (see Table 1). Primary values (actual collect-ive actions) were assumed to be contingent on the achieve-ment of secondary values, which in turn can only be achieved if the co-action conditions are met. Hence the term “building blocks” as the qualities build on one another in sequence. The issue concerning sequence is reflected in the
interviewees’ emphasis on the importance of the “early
stage” of planning for the ability to create joint work
towards shared objectives for functioning collaborations in later stages. The differences between the projects in terms of how well the participating organizations managed to collab-orate can be interpreted in light of how well they managed to create favorable co-action conditions (honest, open, and inclusive dialog and resources, e.g., finances, knowledge, mandate, and leadership). An important reason for the diffi-culties in collaboration in Korsv€agen was the lack of co-action conditions such as resources and clear mandates among the officers running the project. Important secondary values (collaborative qualities such as trust, mutual respect, and understanding of the motivations and roles of other organizations) were indeed developed in both the Tv€arbanan and Korsv€agen projects. However, our analysis shows that without sufficient co-action conditions, it does not matter if there is an understanding of the motivations and roles of other organizations, mutual respect, trust, and honest and inclusive dialog.
The sequential view of collaboration as a stepwise process can also be viewed as problematic based on the experiences of the interviewees. In the theoretical framework, shared objectives are defined as an outcome of the collaborative process, while the interviewees from the Tv€arbanan project stressed the importance of shared objectives at the outset of the collaborative process. In both projects there were shared objectives on an overarching level to the extent that the
purpose of the projects was defined and that the participat-ing organizations had the ambition to build and plan the projects together. However, difficulties were encountered, especially when handling detailed issues. These difficulties were handled successfully in the Tv€arbanan project, but less so in the Korsv€agen project. In the Korsv€agen project, con-flicts over space for cars or for public transport were one example of issues arising. This points to the need for collab-oration on different levels and over time. Shared objectives are in this sense not necessarily an outcome of the collab-orative process, and they have to be continuously negotiated in concrete planning situations. In line with Winkler (2006), our results confirm that it is relatively easy to have shared objectives on an overarching level, but it is more difficult when it comes to details where differences in interests are revealed. Collaboration should therefore be viewed as a dynamic process where shared objectives are continuously re-created and anchored with the participating organiza-tions. In this continuous process, the early stages are critical, but shared objectives and agreement on how to act must be
re-created throughout the different phases in the
collaboration.
The results of the present analysis also improve our understanding of the necessary conditions for functioning collaborations compared with the theory in another way. An obvious prerequisite for functioning collaboration empha-sized by the interviewees, but not described in the theoret-ical framework, is that the participating organizations need to have clear internal objectives.
5.3. What practical recommendations on how to establish and sustain a functioning collaboration can be given based on the two cases?
Our results show that the theoretical conceptualization of the conditions for collaboration was quite close to the prac-tical experiences in the two public transport projects. This provides some important lessons about collaboration in a public transport project context. The following general and practical recommendations can be made based on the case studies considered here in combination with the theory of
collaboration as summarized in Table 1.
Organisations should:
Establish a shared understanding of the purpose of the collaboration and the benefits of the collaboration for the different organizations involved.
Ensure that all organizations involved begin to partici-pate early in the process.
Have clear internal objectives and establish clear respon-sibilities for units or departments within the individual organizations.
Establish clear rules for collaboration between the differ-ent organizations early in the process.
Ensure that difficult issues are raised early in the plan-ning stage.
Create clarity on finances and who will pay for differ-ent items.
Allocate resources in terms of money for personnel to invest time in collaborative activities. Other non-monet-ary resources such as expertise and leadership also need to be sufficient.
Create clarity concerning mandates and emphasize the need to delegate power to the individuals representing the organizations in the collaboration.
These recommendations are thus mainly common sense. Why, then, is it so difficult to create functioning collabor-ation in practice? Despite interviewees in both of the studied cases having very similar experiences and perceptions of how to create a functioning collaboration, they succeeded to very different degrees. The reason is summed up in the response of one interviewee:
No two projects are the same. There can be no single recipe for how to proceed. But experience shows that if you have a good collaboration, then you usually have the will to resolve the difficulties in any case. My experience is– early planning, get to know one another early, understand the different roles and the economic conditions. (Interviewee 6, Stockholm County Council)
We can also use our results to discuss the wider analyt-ical implications of relevance for public transport govern-ance. Public transport research has identified different collaborative“hotspots”, some of which are the result of lack of formal governance mechanisms that coordinate the actions of formal, discrete organizations (e.g., Rye et al.,
2018). Previous research sometimes argues that“deliberative governance approaches” are part of the solution to coordin-ation problems that stand in the way of establishing efficient public transport systems (e.g., McLeod et al., 2017). The potential disconnection between regional public transport
and local land use planning is one such “hotspot” where
previous research has suggested that regional and local authorities create integrated planning through dialog that produces agreements with no statutory status (e.g., Hrelja et al.,2017). This research on governance in public transport can be viewed as a subset of a broader body of transport research (e.g., Stead, 2016) that shares a similar analytical interest in what can be achieved through so-called “informal” or “soft” forms of governance (in such different empirical areas as port governance, e.g., Ng, Monios, & Zhang,2018, and partnerships for delivering better bus serv-ices, e.g., Stanley & van de Velde, 2008) that inform and coordinate the actions of discrete organizations. There is a clear relationship between this research and the theory of collaboration tested in the present paper. However, previous research seldom shows when such deliberative approaches work or what the reasons are for deliberative approaches failing. Our results demonstrate the boundaries of what deliberative approaches can bring about and some of the prerequisites that must be in place for them to work. 6. Conclusions
In this paper, we identify some of the prerequisites for func-tional collaboration. We describe collaboration as a stepwise
process starting from the situation where a desired outcome is impossible to reach by an organization in isolation (“co-action condition”). The aim is to move on to the stage where problems are jointly described and objectives are shared (“primary values”). This qualitative transition cannot be achieved in one instant step, but must be taken incre-mentally. An intermediary step (“secondary values”) is thus needed in order to develop a joint problem definition and to come to agreement on how to act in relation to the sub-ject of the collaboration. We also discuss important factors that can be taken as the essential qualities of collaboration – including honest, open, and inclusive dialog and resources in the form of finance, knowledge, mandate, and leadership (“co-action conditions”). Our results show that there are clear limits to what can be achieved by developing trust, mutual, respect, etc. (“secondary values”). If these qualities can be achieved, our results show that organizations achieve better conditions for creating well-functioning public trans-port. However, it is important not to overestimate what can
be achieved with these “cosy” collaborative qualities.
Although the organizations understood each other in the Korsv€agen project, there were differences in interests that could not be reconciled through dialog. It is hard work, and not always possible, to achieve primary values of collabor-ation (such as a joint problem definition and an agreement on how to act in relation to the subject of the collaboration) because conflicts arising from different goals are an inherent characteristic of collaboration. The results of this study high-light that what characterizes functioning collaboration is not that it is a bed of roses, but rather that the conditions for dialog and understanding are favorable. Because conflicts are unavoidable, the key is how to handle these conflicts in a constructive way.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the three anonymous reviewers for their con-structive comments, which greatly helped to improve the paper. We would also like to thank the interviewees for taking the time to meet with us and share their experiences. This research was carried out in collaboration with K2 - The Swedish Knowledge Centre for Public Transport.
ORCID
Fredrik Pettersson http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4991-5100
Robert Hrelja http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9445-784X
References
Ansell, C., Gash, A.. (2008). Collaborative governance in theory and practice. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 2008(18), 543–571.
Berman, W., Smith, M., & Bauer, J. (2005). Regional concept for trans-portation operations. A tool for strengthening and guiding collabor-ation and coordincollabor-ation. Transportcollabor-ation Research Records, 1925, 245–253.
Blatner, K., Carroll, M., Daniel, S., & Walker, G. (2001). Evaluating the application of collaborative learning to the Wenathcee fire recovery planning effort. Environmental Impact Assessment, 21(3), 241–270.
