title: Critical success factors in inter-institutional project collaborations

authors: Honeyfield, Judith

abstract: Since its establishment in 2007, Ako Aotearoa: National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence has funded over 150 projects focused on changing practice and improving learner outcomes through the three Regional Hub Project Funds (RHPF): Northern Region, Central Region and Southern. Project teams are encouraged to consult and collaborate with others leveraging what Huxham (1996) calls the ‘collaborative advantage’, achieved when something new is produced - perhaps an objective is met - that no single organisation could have produced. By mid-2014, the total number of completed projects supported by the Regional Hub Project Fund and published on Ako Aotearoa’s website which had involved inter-institutional project teams had reached 44. This report outlines an evaluation of the collaboration experience within these multi-organisation projects with the purpose of determining the factors which contribute to a successful project team and sustainable community of practice. The two overarching objectives were first, to address gaps in both organisational knowledge and the literature about inter-institutional collaborations and what makes them reach, exceed, or fail their potential to deliver long term value and benefits to participants; and second, to summarise the learnings from project teams’ experience of collaborative work to produce a resource for future teams. This investigation, from its inception, was intended to be both applied and practicable in its outcomes, with a high relevance to the wider tertiary education community; this ethos has guided all aspects of the project design and reporting. A four-phase enquiry was conducted, comprising 1) a document analysis of all completed RHPF projects to determine those which had involved inter-institutional project teams (n=44); 2) a literature review; 3) an online survey (n=41, representing a 34% response rate), and 4) interviews with invited participants (n=18). In addition, the report also recounts the research team’s own experience of establishing a good interinstitutional collaborative process, placing the researchers within the project as participants themselves: a deliberate and conscious approach to generate insights into useful tools, techniques and timing. The survey was adapted from an existing instrument for measuring collaboration effectiveness, the Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory (n.d.) which generated a series of ranked responses per factor for each project (see Appendix A). By assigning a numerical value to these responses, high, medium and low-scoring projects were identified, enabling the team to ensure a cross-section of experiences were selected for follow-up interviews. Although this comparison was undertaken as part of the team’s decision-making, rather than for any external reporting, one important outcome can be shared: all 22 projects represented in the sample scored positively (between 1 and 79) within a range of -100 to +100. The final stage of survey data analysis was to aggregate individual factor scores across projects to identify the overall weighting for each of the 24 factors. Next, the 18 candidates for the semi-structured interviews identified from the survey responses were invited to share their experiences of inter-institutional collaborative project work. Ten question prompts (Appendix B) covered four stages in the collaboration: the precondition, or relationship-building period; the beginning, when the work is planned; the process-interaction stage; and the outcomes period of reflection, evaluation and change (Gray, 1989). These interviews were transcribed and coded for emerging themes. Survey results are presented as a brief discussion of the highest and lowest scoring factors, while interview results are collated under ten topic areas, with interview participants’ voice included throughout to allow readers a sense of the variety of experiences encompassed, and the impact these have had on those involved. A key finding was that 10 of the 18 interviewees were still collaborating with some or all members of the original team in activities such as research, resource development, co-authoring, co-teaching and copresenting, meaning that just over half the collaborative networks developed through RHPF projects were sustainable and had led to long-term significant and tangible benefits for team members. Other findings discussed in this report relate to the ‘trickle-down effect’ where informants described the way practitioner involvement in collaborative change projects led to learner benefits, and to specific approaches, issues and circumstances which either enabled or restricted the success of the collaboration. Results from all phases of the project were mined to identify the most important elements that make a collaboration work, again using the adapted Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory (n.d.), and Gray’s (1989) collaboration stages as a framework. These elements then inform the main (and separate) output from this project: “Getting on: A Guide to Good Practice in Inter-Institutional Collaborative Projects”. This guide is available at https://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/research-register/list/critical-success-factors-inter-institutionalproject-collaborations and is intended to assist teams who are embarking on a new collaborative project.

text: Critical success factors in inter-institutional project collaborations Since its establishment in 2007, Ako Aotearoa: National Centre for Tertiary Teaching Excellence has funded over 150 projects focused on changing practice and improving learner outcomes through the three Regional Hub Project Funds (RHPF): Northern Region, Central Region and Southern. Project teams are encouraged to consult and collaborate with others leveraging what Huxham (1996) calls the ‘collaborative advantage’, achieved when something new is produced - perhaps an objective is met - that no single organisation could have produced. By mid-2014, the total number of completed projects supported by the Regional Hub Project Fund and published on Ako Aotearoa’s website which had involved inter-institutional project teams had reached 44. This report outlines an evaluation of the collaboration experience within these multi-organisation projects with the purpose of determining the factors which contribute to a successful project team and sustainable community of practice. The two overarching objectives were first, to address gaps in both organisational knowledge and the literature about inter-institutional collaborations and what makes them reach, exceed, or fail their potential to deliver long term value and benefits to participants; and second, to summarise the learnings from project teams’ experience of collaborative work to produce a resource for future teams. This investigation, from its inception, was intended to be both applied and practicable in its outcomes, with a high relevance to the wider tertiary education community; this ethos has guided all aspects of the project design and reporting. A four-phase enquiry was conducted, comprising 1) a document analysis of all completed RHPF projects to determine those which had involved inter-institutional project teams (n=44); 2) a literature review; 3) an online survey (n=41, representing a 34% response rate), and 4) interviews with invited participants (n=18). In addition, the report also recounts the research team’s own experience of establishing a good interinstitutional collaborative process, placing the researchers within the project as participants themselves: a deliberate and conscious approach to generate insights into useful tools, techniques and timing. The survey was adapted from an existing instrument for measuring collaboration effectiveness, the Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory (n.d.) which generated a series of ranked responses per factor for each project (see Appendix A). By assigning a numerical value to these responses, high, medium and low-scoring projects were identified, enabling the team to ensure a cross-section of experiences were selected for follow-up interviews. Although this comparison was undertaken as part of the team’s decision-making, rather than for any external reporting, one important outcome can be shared: all 22 projects represented in the sample scored positively (between 1 and 79) within a range of -100 to +100. The final stage of survey data analysis was to aggregate individual factor scores across projects to identify the overall weighting for each of the 24 factors. Next, the 18 candidates for the semi-structured interviews identified from the survey responses were invited to share their experiences of inter-institutional collaborative project work. Ten question prompts (Appendix B) covered four stages in the collaboration: the precondition, or relationship-building period; the beginning, when the work is planned; the process-interaction stage; and the outcomes period of reflection, evaluation and change (Gray, 1989). These interviews were transcribed and coded for emerging themes. Survey results are presented as a brief discussion of the highest and lowest scoring factors, while interview results are collated under ten topic areas, with interview participants’ voice included throughout to allow readers a sense of the variety of experiences encompassed, and the impact these have had on those involved. A key finding was that 10 of the 18 interviewees were still collaborating with some or all members of the original team in activities such as research, resource development, co-authoring, co-teaching and copresenting, meaning that just over half the collaborative networks developed through RHPF projects were sustainable and had led to long-term significant and tangible benefits for team members. Other findings discussed in this report relate to the ‘trickle-down effect’ where informants described the way practitioner involvement in collaborative change projects led to learner benefits, and to specific approaches, issues and circumstances which either enabled or restricted the success of the collaboration. Results from all phases of the project were mined to identify the most important elements that make a collaboration work, again using the adapted Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory (n.d.), and Gray’s (1989) collaboration stages as a framework. These elements then inform the main (and separate) output from this project: “Getting on: A Guide to Good Practice in Inter-Institutional Collaborative Projects”. This guide is available at https://akoaotearoa.ac.nz/research-register/list/critical-success-factors-inter-institutionalproject-collaborations and is intended to assist teams who are embarking on a new collaborative project.

year: 2015

title: The Effect of Heat Treatment on the Structure and Properties of Hemp/PLA Composites

authors: Jayaraman, Jeevan

subjects: PLA

abstract: This project focuses on bio-derived composites made from poly(lactic acid) (PLA) and hemp as well as the influence of PLA crystallinity on material properties. 
It is known that crystallinity can occur as spherulites within a polymer matrix bulk and as transcrystallinity on fibre surfaces in thermoplastic matrix composites. In addition, thermal history is known to influence the degree of crystallinity of polymer materials. The aim of this project was to study the effect of heat treatment or  annealing  on crystallinity and the influence of this on properties of hemp/PLA composites. 
	Composites were observed to become more opaque during heat treatment and increased crystallinity after heat treatment was seen using optical microscopy. XRD and DSC results showed that crystallinity was much higher for composites than PLA, supporting the fibre acting as a nucleating agent. There was no apparent change to tensile strength with increased heat treatment for PLA, however, for composite samples, increased heat treatment led to a small reduction in average tensile strength. Although there was no discernable trend for change of fracture toughness with increased crystallinity for PLA, it decreased for composite materials. It appears that the increased crystallinity present in the composite in combination with increased stress concentration due to the presence of fibres is reducing composite toughness as well as leading to premature failure in tensile tests due to PLA brittleness explaining lower strengths for composites. DMTA suggests that increase in crystallinity contributes to thermal stability of the composite.

text: The Effect of Heat Treatment on the Structure and Properties of Hemp/PLA Composites This project focuses on bio-derived composites made from poly(lactic acid) (PLA) and hemp as well as the influence of PLA crystallinity on material properties. 
It is known that crystallinity can occur as spherulites within a polymer matrix bulk and as transcrystallinity on fibre surfaces in thermoplastic matrix composites. In addition, thermal history is known to influence the degree of crystallinity of polymer materials. The aim of this project was to study the effect of heat treatment or  annealing  on crystallinity and the influence of this on properties of hemp/PLA composites. 
	Composites were observed to become more opaque during heat treatment and increased crystallinity after heat treatment was seen using optical microscopy. XRD and DSC results showed that crystallinity was much higher for composites than PLA, supporting the fibre acting as a nucleating agent. There was no apparent change to tensile strength with increased heat treatment for PLA, however, for composite samples, increased heat treatment led to a small reduction in average tensile strength. Although there was no discernable trend for change of fracture toughness with increased crystallinity for PLA, it decreased for composite materials. It appears that the increased crystallinity present in the composite in combination with increased stress concentration due to the presence of fibres is reducing composite toughness as well as leading to premature failure in tensile tests due to PLA brittleness explaining lower strengths for composites. DMTA suggests that increase in crystallinity contributes to thermal stability of the composite.

year: 2010

title: Grounding our collective Talanoa, Enabling open conversations

authors: Fa'avae, David Taufui Mkiato

abstract: As co-editors in this special issue of the Waikato Journal of Education (WJE), we share our talanoa thoughts and open conversations from the University of Waikato in Kirikiriroa (Hamilton), a place and space that has a special relationship with Waikato-Tainui and the Kīngitanga. We acknowledge our ties with Māori as tangata moana (people of the ocean), noting the past as well as the existing vā connections between the Kīngitanga and other Pacific peoples and leaders, including the House of Tupou, the royal family of Tonga. We are also mindful of our responsibility to honour Te Tiriti and to the honouring of tangata whenua and their mana whenua. At the same time, we embrace the ancestral connections between Māori and Pacific people through shared common heritages (Te Punga Somerville, 2012), of voyaging, wayfinding, knowledge and ako by which they settled Moananuiākea (the Hawaiian term for the Pacific Ocean) in one of “the greatest feats in human history” (Hawaii State Legislature, 2021, n.p.). We hope this volume honours those relationships and our shared whakapapa, whanaungatanga, and kaupapa.

text: Grounding our collective Talanoa, Enabling open conversations As co-editors in this special issue of the Waikato Journal of Education (WJE), we share our talanoa thoughts and open conversations from the University of Waikato in Kirikiriroa (Hamilton), a place and space that has a special relationship with Waikato-Tainui and the Kīngitanga. We acknowledge our ties with Māori as tangata moana (people of the ocean), noting the past as well as the existing vā connections between the Kīngitanga and other Pacific peoples and leaders, including the House of Tupou, the royal family of Tonga. We are also mindful of our responsibility to honour Te Tiriti and to the honouring of tangata whenua and their mana whenua. At the same time, we embrace the ancestral connections between Māori and Pacific people through shared common heritages (Te Punga Somerville, 2012), of voyaging, wayfinding, knowledge and ako by which they settled Moananuiākea (the Hawaiian term for the Pacific Ocean) in one of “the greatest feats in human history” (Hawaii State Legislature, 2021, n.p.). We hope this volume honours those relationships and our shared whakapapa, whanaungatanga, and kaupapa.

year: 2021