In Parts 1–3, I used simple logical concepts to ask wider questions about partnerships: what does the problem require and what does each organisation bring; what is the partnership part of; and how do relationships and influence work across the system? Part 4 brings those ideas into one picture. Here, I use Set theory to…
In Part 1, I looked at using truth tables to understand what each organisation brings to a partnership. In Part 2, I looked at what happens when we go one step further and place that partnership within the wider system around it. There is another useful idea in Gibson and Isaac’s work: once you…
In my last piece, I wrote about using a simple truth-table approach to think about partnerships. The basic idea was straightforward. Start with the problem, identify what it requires, then ask what we have, what a potential partner has, and what neither of us has. It is a useful exercise because it forces the logic…
A lot of partnership decisions begin with a fairly sensible calculation. We have this, they have that and together, we might be able to do something neither of us could do alone. That is usually how it should work but when the problem is difficult, identifying complementary assets is only the beginning. The harder question…
I used to think strategic partnership facilitation was mainly about getting the right people around the table and helping them reach agreement. Now, I’m increasingly thinking it is more about helping people understand what problem they are actually trying to solve. Because the problem you see determines the questions you ask, the evidence you look…