Abstract

Although there is undeniable proof of the efficacy of certain initiatives, the peacebuilding sector as a whole has challenges in making a substantial influence on wider conflict dynamics.   In order to create and effectively showcase such a significant influence, it is crucial to have extensive cooperation, mutual learning, and unified systems for evaluating progress among peacebuilding participants.   Collective impact strategies have been successfully introduced in several disciplines, but they have not yet garnered substantial momentum within the peacebuilding community.   The recognition of the need for peacebuilders to work in a more integrated manner is growing, however there has been minimal advancement in this regard.   This study adopts the collective impact framework as a foundation due to its ability to clearly and succinctly address the fundamental challenge: How can collaboration be nurtured in a way that enables businesses to achieve and showcase a greater influence beyond their individual endeavours?   The objective is to extract valuable insights from the technique and subsequently implement them in the realm of peacebuilding.   Suggestions for future endeavours aimed at establishing collaborative impact efforts in the peacebuilding sector involve fostering collaboration across the whole project cycle and establishing a shared agenda with a distinct thematic and geographic focus.

Keywords: collective impact framework, peacebuilding, conflict resolution, sense-making, collaboration

Overview

Peacebuilding efforts inherently strive to bring about profound and substantial transformation within a society.   Collaboration is crucial in order to achieve such a significant influence, even inside the community.   At the community level, it is highly unlikely for any individual, group, or effort to independently make a significant impact on matters concerning violence and peace.   However, extensive and enduring cooperation among peacebuilding organizations is uncommon rather than typical.   This dilemma has assumed a pivotal role in the domain of peacebuilding.   In order to address this issue, peacebuilders must possess the ability to provide answers to two fundamental inquiries: 

• How can we strategically plan and execute our programs to ensure they have a wider and more significant influence?
• How can we acquire the evidence required to ascertain the cumulative effect and effectiveness of our programs? 

This challenge is not novel, nor is it exclusive to peacebuilding, but the issue has become more severe for two primary reasons.   Initially, assertions that particular projects contribute to wider societal transformation in conflict-ridden areas are becoming increasingly dubious.   The peacebuilding field has extensive historical involvement in regions such as Israel-Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, and South Sudan. Despite numerous projects that have been considered successful, they have not significantly impacted the overall conflict in these areas.   The term “project-itis” has been adopted in the field of development and peacebuilding to specifically refer to this phenomenon. 

The dynamic is associated with an increased need for accountability.   There is a growing need in all areas of social change to rely on evidence and show the effectiveness of programs.   In the context of peacebuilding, it is essential to demonstrate influence at a level beyond individual projects.   While the persistence of violent conflicts like Iraq or South Sudan does not necessarily imply the failure of peacebuilders, it does require them to show tangible influence on the broader dynamics of the conflicts in order to assert their success.

Collaborative sensemaking

Collaborative sensemaking refers to the process in which teams of individuals work together to collectively interpret and understand the knowledge they possess (Kirschner, Buckingham Shum, & Carr, 2003).   Collaborative sensemaking is prevalent in situations that demand quick reactions and the integration of various sources of information, such as in on-the-scene disaster response. These tasks are complex enough to necessitate the involvement of multiple perspectives and talents in order to comprehend and interpret the available data, as seen in intelligence analysis where large volumes of data need to be sifted through. 

In his 1993 work, Karl Weick posited that sensemaking involves the continuous process of constructing order and retrospectively making sense of events in order to shape our understanding of reality.  Specifically, when dealing with complex and ever-changing information, it is crucial for groups of individuals to not only synchronize their sharing of information, but also align their objectives, interpretations, and adjustments of previous theories in light of newly acquired information. 

In recent times, collaborative and social sensemaking systems have emerged, presenting a range of problems that need to be addressed. These problems include those related to establishing shared understanding, effective communication, seamless transitions, and efficient coordination.   Specifically, there is an increasing emphasis on comprehending how teams operating in various fields redirect their attention on an individual level, as well as collectively, to manage the tasks related to making sense of information.

The methodology of collective impact

The phrase collective impact gained popularity following the publication of a 2011 paper in the Stanford Social Innovation Review. This article proposed a method for funders and implementers to enhance their collaboration in addressing a particular problem within a specific geographic area, with the aim of generating more comprehensive and systemic solutions.   The concept of collective influence is defined as the dedication of a group of influential individuals from many sectors to a shared agenda aimed at resolving a specific social issue.   The references cited are Blum and Grangaard (2018) and Kania and Kramer (2011).   During an interview at the 2015 Tamarak conference, John Kania acknowledged that the concept of collective effect has been around in various forms for many years. However, it is currently undergoing a re-branding process with the use of new terminology.   A growing awareness is emerging among individuals regarding the necessity for a novel type of collaboration, leading to an increased inclination towards acquiring knowledge on how to consistently contribute to their local communities.   Individuals are actively seeking resolutions, and collective effect could perhaps provide the solution.

Collaboration is a longstanding practice.   The social sector abounds with instances of collaborations, networks, and other forms of collective endeavours.   However, collective impact programs possess specific differences.   Distinct from typical collaborations, collective impact efforts entail a centralized infrastructure, committed personnel, a methodical procedure that results in a shared agenda, coordinated measurement, ongoing communication, and mutually reinforcing actions among all participants.

This study adopts the collective impact framework as a foundation due to its ability to clearly and succinctly address the fundamental challenge: How can one promote collaboration that enables businesses to achieve and showcase a greater influence beyond their individual endeavours?   The objective is to extract valuable observations from the methodology and implement them in the realm of peacebuilding, without endorsing the complete adoption of the approach or claiming it as the exclusive or optimal method for promoting substantial cooperation among peacebuilding organizations.   These questions are worth investigating.

Kania and Kramer (2011) argue that attempts to foster collaboration between organizations have failed to achieve the intended results due to a lack of long-lasting agreement on shared objectives among the organizations involved.   Moreover, Kania and Kramer elucidate that the foundation of collective impact’s triumph originates from its fundamental attributes.   Their research has delineated five attributes of collective impact efforts that result in favourable outcomes (Kania, Hanleybrown, & Juster 2014):  

(a) A shared or mutually agreed upon plan or set of goals.   This attribute enables members of the community to synchronize their interests and resources in a purposeful and enduring manner.   A common agenda entails more than just a shared objective. It involves a collective comprehension of both the means to achieve that objective and the nature of the situation at hand. 

(b) Collaborative measuring systems.   Evaluation yields data on the effectiveness of the initiative.   In the absence of a shared agenda, partners face challenges in reaching consensus on the metrics required to determine the success of the initiative.   This stage is intricate, as there is no uniformity in the measurements employed by different organizations.   Nevertheless, to ensure accurate reporting and draw dependable findings, it is crucial to establish a consensus on the timing and methodology for measuring the outcomes (Parkhurst and Preskill, 2014). 

(c) Activities that strengthen each other.   Effective cross-sector coordination entails leveraging the expertise and strengths of different organizations, rather than duplicating efforts. This allows each organization to take ownership of a specific aspect of the project.   Nevertheless, it is imperative for every business to operate in unison and adhere to the shared agenda.

(d) Ongoing contact.   Consistent, frequent, and organized communication has been recognized as crucial in establishing trustworthy connections among collective impact participants.   Without a substantial investment of time and extensive discourse, accomplishing the first two steps would be challenging.

(e) Organizations that provide support and assistance to other organizations.   The backbone support organization serves as a facilitator, project manager, and data manager for the collective impact effort (Kania and Kramer, 2011).   The organization’s staff offers administrative assistance and facilitates cooperation among all collaborating organizations to assure the project’s progress by overcoming hurdles.   Collective impact reduces competition among social change activities by promoting teamwork instead of isolated influence (Irby and Boyle, 2014). 

These five characteristics are profound, arduous to achieve, and, as evidenced by research, valuable (Parkhurst & Preskill, 2014; Stewart, 2013).   Only a small number of social change efforts can be classified as collective impact, as its unique features require organizations and community people to change their mindset from conventional methods.

In conclusion

To summarize, collective impact is a special sort of collaboration that aims to address difficult societal issues by bringing together many groups from different sectors, all working towards a shared objective.   Given the novelty of this method, it is crucial to emphasize the need for deliberate implementation of a collaborative impact initiative, encompassing all its unique features. This ensures the initiative’s success, sustainability, and optimal resource utilization. 

We urge practitioners of collective impact to ascertain the amount of analysis employed by their initiative, devise methods to measure and shape the initiative’s future, and designate a facilitator for the effort.   We also urge grantors and funders to alter their mindset when distributing resources to organizations.   In the future, it is crucial for professionals in universities, non-profit organizations, and other industries to further develop the definition of collective impact and the most effective methods for organizing, implementing, and maintaining collective impact programs.

References

Blum, A., & Grangaard, R. (2018). Collaborative design in peacebuilding: Lessons from the Central African Republic. Special Report, United States Institute of Peace. Retrieved from https://www.usip.org/sites/default/files/2018-04/sr_425_blum_grangaard_final.pdf (Accessed 31 March 2019).

Irby, M., & Boyle, P. (2014). Aligning collective impact initiatives. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 12 (4): 15-16.

Kania, J., Hanleybrown, F., & Splansky Juster, J. (2014). Essential mindset shifts for collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review 12 (4), 2-5.

Kania, J., & Kramer, M. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(1), 36-41.

Parkhurst, M., & Preskill, H. (2014). Learning in action: Evaluating collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review 12 (4), 17-19.

Stewart, S. D. (2013). United way, healthy communities, and collective impact. National Civic Review 102 (4), 75-78. doi:10.1002/ncr.21162.

Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.