Taming the snake in paradise: combining institutional design and leadership to enhance collaborative innovation

Figures & data

Table 1. Overview of the collaborative innovation cases

Jurisdictional level	Policy domains *	Countries
Local (12)	Agriculture (2)	Australia (3)
Regional (5)	Culture (6)	Canada (1)
National (4)	Economy Trade (2)	Colombia (1)
	Education (4)	Denmark (1)
Local & Multilevel (1)	Environment (14)	Germany (1)
Local & Regional (5)	Infrastructure (5)	Vietnam (1)
Local, Regional & National (2)	Health (6)	Italy (1)
Local, Regional & Multilevel (1)	Security (5)	Netherlands (10)
Local, Regional, National & Multilevel (1)	Social Employment Planning (8)	Norway (1)
Local, Regional, National, Cross-border & Supranational (1)	Technology/Transport (1)	Sweden (1) USA (11)

Number of cases in parenthesis

* More than one policy domains is possible for each case

Table 2. Data collection

Number of cases	Data collection
12	Documents and Interviews
10	Documents and Interviews and Observations
3	Documents and Interviews and Survey
4	Documents and Interviews and Observations and Survey
1 1	Interviews and Observations Documents and Survey

Table 3. Operationalization of conditions and outcomes

Conditions and outcome	Items from the data bank (Likert scale from 1 to 5)	Label in the QCA analysis
Clarity of rules	24. To what extent were the procedural ground rules for the collaboration clearly explicated by and for the participants? (1 = Very little articulation of ground rules, 5 = Very detailed articulation)	CLA
Transparency of decision-making	27. To what extent were the decision-making processes in the key collaborative forums transparent? (1 = Rarely clear to participants how decisions were taken, 5 = Almost always clear)	TRASP
Convener	32. To what extent was the leadership effective in convening/bringing together the relevant and affected actors (1 = Highly ineffective, 5 = Highly effective)	CONV
Steward	33. To what extent was the leadership effective in guarding the focus and integrity of the collaborative process intended in this case? (1 = Highly ineffective, 5 = Highly effective)	STW
Mediator	34. To what extent was the leadership effective in resolving or mitigating conflicts between actors? (1 = Highly ineffective, 5 = Highly effective)	MED
Catalyst	35. To what extent was the leadership effective in creating and realizing concrete opportunities for creative problem-solving resolving? (1 = Highly ineffective, 5 = Highly effective)	CAT
Innovative solutions	55.3. To what extent did the collaboration produce the following outputs or outcomes? Create innovative solutions in existing policies, programs, practices (1 = Very low, 5 = Very high).	INNSOL

Table 4. Calibration of conditions and outcome

Conditions and outcome	Full non-membership	Crossover point	Full membership
CLA	2	3	4
TRASP	2.75	3.5	4.25
CONV	2.75	3.5	4.25
STW	2	3	4
MED	2	3	4
CAT	2	3	4
INNSOL	2	3	4

Table 5. Analysis of necessity

Condition	Consistency	Coverage
CLA	0.667239	0.815748
~CLA	0.397595	0.715058
TRASP	0.586947	0.762835
~TRASP	0.471876	0.78054
CONV	0.70073	0.75
~CONV	0.343066	0.780273
STW	0.811936	0.790552
~STW	0.228424	0.658416
MED	0.803778	0.74463
~MED	0.225419	0.765306
CAT	0.848003	0.904718
~CAT	0.232289	0.531957

Note: the ~ sign indicates absence of the condition

Table 6. Truth table

CLA	TRASP	CONV	STW	MED	CAT	INN SOL	N	RAW CONS	PRI CONS	CASES
1	0	0	1	0	1	1	1	1	1	S (Cons: 1,0000)
1	0	0	1	1	1	1	1	1	1	E (Cons: 1,0000)
0	0	0	1	1	1	1	2	1	1	X, AD (Cons: 1,0000)
1	1	0	1	1	1	1	2	1	1	V, AF (Cons: 1,0000)
0	0	1	1	1	1	1	3	0.974843	0.965015	A, G, AB (Cons: 0,9748)
1	0	1	1	1	1	1	3	0.963746	0.95539	F, N, T (Cons: 0,9637)
0	1	1	1	1	1	1	2	0.865385	0.706587	AA, AC (Cons: 0,8654)
1	1	1	1	1	1	1	12	0.859155	0.818436	C, D, J, L, M, O, P, R, U, W, Y, AE (Cons: 0,8592)
0	0	0	0	0	0	0	1	0.75	0.226415	Q (Cons: 0,7500)
1	1	0	0	0	0	0	2	0.746412	0.345679	B, I (Cons: 0,7464)
0	1	0	1	1	0	0	1	0.553398	0.178572	Z (Cons: 0,5534)
1	0	1	0	1	0	0	1	0.504854	0.30137	H (Cons: 0,5049)
1	0	1	1	1	0	0	1	0.425287	0.253731	K (Cons: 0,4253)

Table 7. Overview of the configurations leading to innovation through collaboration

	1	2	3	4
CLA		●		●
TRANS	○			○
CONV			●	○
STW	●	●	●	●
MED	●	●	●
CAT	●	●	●	●
Raw coverage	0.350365	0.488192	0.617003	0.096608
Unique coverage	0.038643	0.046372	0.051954	0.019751
Consistency	0.985507	0.887588	0.914122	1.000000
Cases with greater than 0.5 membership in term:	F, G, A, N, T, E, X, AB, AD	C, Y, AF, T, R, P, M, N, O, L, J, F, U, V, W, E, AE, D	A, C, Y, W, R, G, N, T, P, M, F, O, L, J, U, D, AA, AB, AC, AE	E, S

Solutions coverage: 0.747531 Solution Consistency: 0.921164

Frequency cut-off: 1 Consistency cut-off: 0.8

Complex solution

Legend: Black circles represent the presence of a causal condition, and white circles represent the negation of a causal condition. Blank cells represent irrelevant conditions.

Appendix. List of cases

	CASES	Case
1	A	Australian collaboration to develop front-of-pack food labelling policy
2	B	Independent Inquiry into Container Deposit Legislation in NSW
3	C	Blackfoot Challenge (Montana, USA)
4	D	Desert Tortoise Habitat Conservation Planning
5	E	Joint Committee for Counterterrorism of the Dutch national government agencies
6	F	Community Enterprise Het Klokhuis
7	G	Community Enterprise De meevaart
8	H	Collaborative governance in Vietnam flooding
9	I	Chinchina Besin Management Plan
10	J	The Statewide Steering Committee to Reduce Family Violence in Victoria, Australia
11	K	Homelessness policy development and program funding in Vancouver, Canada
12	L	public-private-people collaboration in peri-urban area development; Netherlands
13	M	collaborative policy making committees in Gentofte; Denmark
15	N	Area C – Milan
17	O	Baker River Hydroelectric Project
18	P	Delaware Inland Bays
19	Q	Narragansett Bay (RI)
20	R	Rhode Island’s Salt Ponds
21	S	Lake Tahoe
22	T	Tampa Bay
23	U	Tillamook Bay, Oregon
24	V	Foodborne disease outbreak in Germany
25	W	Infant Mortality CoIIN
26	X	Living Lab Stratumseind
27	Y	Friends of Redington Pass
28	Z	Local Network for Combating Illiterarcy (City A, The Netherlands)
29	AA	Local Network for Combating Illiterarcy (City B, The Netherlands)
32	AB	Revitalisation of Central Dandenong, Melbourne
34	AC	Okay, here’s how it goes (Fight Against Organized Crime, Motorcycle Club)
36	AD	The ‘Neighborhood Renewal Program’, City of Stockholm
37	AE	Collaborative policy making committees in Svelvik Municipality, Norway
39	AF	Wanted Partners (Fight Against Organized Crime, Human Trafficking)