The term ‘partnership’ is presented in the literature in various forms which may be confusing to organisations. When professionally and intelligently comprehended and executed, a partnership can bring great success to those parties involved (Wollenburg et al. 2013).
Partnership has a variety of meanings and connotations for different people (Uhlik 2005). Moreover, as Uhlik (2005, p. 27) affirmed, ‘a partnership is a dynamic arrangement between two or more parties, based on satisfying mutually recognized needs’. In addition, a partnership is ‘an ongoing
52
arrangement between two or more parties, based upon satisfying specifically identified, mutual needs’ (Uhlik 1995, p. 14). Foskett (2005, p. 252) suggests that a partnership, in its simplest form, ‘is about working jointly together with at least one other person/group’.
James (1999) states that ‘partnership’ has become a comprehensive term that often involves collaboration, civic engagement, resource sharing, coalitions, alliances and agreements.
The variance in partnership definitions and in its dimensions provides a degree of uncertainty in explaining collaborative relationships and systematically assessing the influence of partnership activities (Cousens et al. 2006). For example, Gray, B (1989, p. 5) describes partnering as ‘a process through which parties who see different aspects of a problem can constructively explore their differences and search for solutions that go beyond their own limited visions of what is possible’. According to Cousens et al. (2006), leaders and managers in government often use partnership to describe virtually all interactions with the organisation with which they are involved, regardless of the relationship type or success. Although partnership and collaboration are used interchangeably, collaboration often refers to the process of partnering. As Wood and Gray (1991, p. 5) suggest, ‘collaboration occurs when a group of autonomous stakeholders from a particular problem domain engage in an interactive process, using shared rules, norms, and structures, to act or decide on issues related to that domain’.
Johnston (1997, p. 1) describes partnership or collaboration as ‘an untidy business, full of uncharted territories, ambiguities and institutional complexities’. The complexity occurs in making an effort, not simply to define ‘partnership’, but to analyse what it actually is. Therefore, Johnston (1997, p. 1) states that ‘we understand collaboration as commonality of purpose and equality power relations, but we are hard pressed to define exactly what this might look like in practice’. Trubowitz and Longo (1997, p. 27) concur, noting ‘there is not a uniform agreement about precisely what
53
constitutes true collaborations’. Finally, Giesecke (2012) explains that partnerships are complex relationships shaped around challenging but solvable problems which need shared expertise and creative thinking, and when both partners have adequate capacity to bring resources to the endeavour.
Wilson (1995, p. 267) splits the process of partnership or collaboration on two levels: ad hoc alliances and coalitions and further defined coalitions as:
An enduring arrangement requiring that choices over some common set of interest, for example, resources, goals, strategies, or the like, be made by the explicit mutual agreement among the members. A coalition thus, is an ongoing mechanism for explicitly coordinating some or all of the actions of the members; it is an organization of organizations.
On the other hand, Wilson (1995, p. 278) defines ad hoc partnerships or alliances and maintains they ‘typically take the form of loose, cooperative relationships between two or more associations with the respect to the attainment of a particular end’.
Gray (1989) notes that many versions of the partnership concept rely on key partners, the intention of the partnership and character of partnership relations. Nevertheless, despite issues with partnership terms or duration and clear partnership organisation and evaluation processes, partnerships are becoming more and more essential in the management of public agencies and in the business world.
Wilson (1995) suggests that institutions do not consider establishing coalitions, except when seriously threatened in some manner, or if the institution can be augmented. This is the case in this present study as for public VET providers, or polytechnics, the researcher considered establishing short-term ad hoc partnerships when faced with shrinking internal resources, or when facing a potential crisis. This also leads them to consider more long- term partnerships with other organisations and corporations that share similar objectives. Longevity of association is often considered as a desired
54
characteristic of academic institution/industry partnerships. Nevertheless, these issues need closer scrutiny because enduring collaborations may be neither healthy nor unhealthy (Bringle & Hatcher 2002). The nature of these partnerships and their critical features will be considered in the following sections.
Vocational education institution/industry partnerships are considered as an instrument that has been utilised by a range of companies to address the learning needs of their employees. Indonesia’s Higher Education Act 2012 stipulates that the main roles a higher educational institution currently plays can be generally grouped around the triad of teaching, research and service (Santoro 2000). It is this “service” component that is most relevant in institutional/ industry partnerships.
However, higher educational institutions, including VET providers such as polytechnics and industry, have considered such partnerships to be valuable to both in a range of areas. That is why vocational education institution/industry partnerships have arisen in a wide range of communities, and why business involvement in such partnership programs has escalated. Seitanidi and Crane (2009) add that partnerships between industry and academic institutions are an increasingly important way by which corporations accomplish their corporate social responsibility (CSR) 3 obligations. From the industry’s perspective: ‘It has been argued that the decision on how to govern the implementation of CSR becomes a strategy- led decision’ (Walters & Anagnostopoulos 2012, p. 418).
Batorski and Hughes (2002) state that partnerships use cooperation to enable the distribution of a service or product, and in partnerships there is a distribution of resources to add value to the service or product for customers.
3 Corporate social responsibility (CSR) is a form of corporate self-regulation integrated into
a business model. CSR policy functions as a built-in, self-regulating mechanism, whereby a business monitors and ensures its active compliance with the spirit of the law, ethical standards and international norms.
55
Today, partnerships are emerging as an important construct in almost all sectors of business and education. There are various categories of partnerships between workplaces and educational systems such as apprenticeship and “trainee” programs (Doeringer 1981).
Elmuti, Abebe and Nicolosi (2005) argue that partnerships between higher education and industry allow each of the organisations involved to preserve their own core competencies, managing structure and mission, whilst growing the knowledge and abilities of each organisation.
Bray and Scalzo (2005, p. 97) highlight the increasing significance of partnerships for higher education institutions, including VET providers, noting: ‘The ability to build and sustain effective partnerships will be a key competitive advantage for universities in an age of the global educational village’. Even though VET providers need significant support and funding from the government, they have to overcome a range of obstacles to attract and develop partnerships and, in turn, improve their capabilities and capacity for entrepreneurial interactions (de Medeiros Rocha et al. 2012). For the academic partner, there are benefits in addition to increased enrolments and revenue. From the business world’s perspective, in addition to competitive advantage, there are also tangible employee benefits.
Collaborations with academic institutions are built on the recognition of mutual need and perceived value. Bowie (1994) explains that the industry partner can obtain an advantage through: access to skilled scholarly researchers connected to research facilities; tailored training and collegiate programs for their workforces; and improved vision and reputation based upon collaboration with higher educational institutions. Such partnerships may also contribute to better employee retention and employee recruitment. In addition to the acquisition of new employee competencies, these partnerships may impact the industry base line and enhance competitive benefits (Bowie 1994; Meister 2003).
56
For the VET institution, an alliance or partnership with industry can offer a new source of income including access to finance for research endeavours in a vocational area and a body of non-conventional students drawn from the industry partner (Meisler 2004; Meister 2003; Newman, Couturier & Scurry 2004).
In order to continue to operate, VET providers require financial resources. Therefore, vocational education institutions seek to establish more networks with their stakeholders, especially industry. Funds come from within the institutions themselves; from outside entities, especially as government subsidies; from students in the form of tuition fees; and through partnerships with industry (Losco & Fife 2000). The reliance of higher education institutions on financial resources is described by Pfeffer and Salancik (2003, p. 258), and this reliance can be problematic:
To survive organizations require resources. Typically, acquiring resources means the organization must interact with others who control those resources. In that sense, organizations depend on their environment. Because the
organization does not control the resources it needs, resource acquisition may be problematic and uncertain. Others who control resources may be
undependable, particularly when are scarce.
However, the mutual result is ultimately defined by the partners. Foskett (2005, p. 253) claims that successful collaborations between higher educational institutions and industry show a synergistic connection, whose ‘total effect is greater than the sum of the parts’. The mutual benefits for both partners may occur through modification and adjustment which is presented in process and product of the partnerships (Foskett 2005).
Foskett (2005) makes two recommendations for successful partnerships. First, the partners have to comprehend and reach agreement on the common benefits of the partnership and agree that the partnership has a real value, whose outcomes will be greater than the costs of the partnership. Second, that one of the partnership types used extensively in workforce training is between a higher education institution and an individual enterprise in order to
57
improve the skill and knowledge levels of that enterprise’s workforce. VET institutions, such as polytechnics, are involved in these types of partnerships more often than any other type of higher education institution.
In connection with VET, Kilpatrick (2003) stated that there are relationships of VET providers in a variety of partnerships that exist for a range of purposes. Vocational education and training partnerships consist of two or more organisations who work together in association over short or long period of time to attain commonly held goals around VET (Kilpatrick 2000). The VET partnership models with industry from Kilpatrick’s review of a wide range of the education and training literature, relate especially to training needs and demand, developing curriculum, and partnerships and collaboration around training. These models can be summarised as:
industry/provider partnerships;
client/provider partnerships;
community/provider partnerships;
broker/client/provider partnerships;
researcher/industry/provider partnerships;
government/industry/provider partnerships; and
provider/provider partnerships, usually involving government (Kilpatrick, Bell & Kilpatrick 2001).
Since the expansion of VET participation in industry partnerships is taking place in direct response to industry’s needs, the considerable complexity and continuous change experienced by industry is reflected in a widening and changing role for VET (Smith & Comyn 2007). Schienstock (2004) argues that many of the methodologies now widely used in the VET sector, such as communities of practice, self-directed learning, action learning, work-based
58
learning and problem-based learning, for example, all reflect changes in the nature of work across all industries where an emphasis is placed on individual responsibility for work and learning alongside a rise in the importance of teamwork and networking.