Collaborative Networks Understanding the possibilities for Detroit

Collaborative Networks - Understanding the possibilities in Detroit
By
Prathmesh J. Gupta
NRE 501.031 Urban Agriculture
Instructor: Mary Carol Hunter

Abstract
Collaborative Networks can be one of the enablers of collaboration between the
various organisations and citizens who may address the unique challenges which arise from
time to time. This paper will try and come up with a plan to develop a collaborative network
for various organisations in Detroit. These networks can be developed through careful
considerations and planning processes which incorporate community concerns, relevant
stakeholders and create mechanisms and structures for effective collaboration. Continuous
learning and feedback should be encouraged so that the network can evolve and develop over
time. Factors which may affect the effectiveness of the network are identified. As this
network is way for various organisations to connect, interact and collaborate, it can
reorganise through the structures, feedback, and learning mechanisms to foster resilience in
the community by acting as a way for solving unique challenges and problems.

Introduction
Grassroots organizations and non-profit organizations having been doing a lot of work
in Detroit to revitalize and change the city which has been in decline since the 1960s - 1970s.
These organizations are the ones which are bringing the most change in the communities in
which they are working. This has been especially true in the case of urban agriculture in the
city, with a large number of vacant plots being repurposed as places where fruits, vegetables
and other produce is grown. These organizations have thus filled an important gap in the
governance and service provision that was traditionally filled by various communities (Drake
& Lawson, 2014).
Through talking to practitioners in Detroit such as Malik Yakini, Nick Lerner, and
people at the Michigan Urban Farming Initiative, it became clear that Detroit lacks a formal
network of all the non - profit organizations which work on the ground. This can be serious
hindrance to the possibilities of collaboration on working on the issues that the city still faces.
This network can also be thought of as a hybrid governance model, with various non-
profit organizations collaborating for improving the effectiveness of the services that they
deliver (Lemos & Agrawal, 2006). Since developing a network is a huge undertaking,
considering that there are more than 1500, 501 (c) registered non-profits in Detroit and still
others who are not officially registered, the focus of this paper will be to try and develop a
plan for the building the network. (The Detroit Ledger). By doing so and engaging the
community in this network, there can be acceleration of the change that is possible through
the collaboration between the various organisations in Detroit (Watson-Thompson, Fawcett,
& Schultz, 2008).

Detroit’s Social Capital
Since depopulation started in Detroit, the city has been consistently losing its
residents to other regions. Slowly and steadily, it had lost a lot of people in a number of
communities. Those who stayed behind then formed the strong backbone of the city, refusing
to leave, and rather started building the communities and slowly the city, most of which had
been left without crucial infrastructure maintenance and utility services. Along with the rise
of the various non-profits initiated by Detroit residents themselves and especially urban
agriculture, these two powers have strengthened the social capital in the city. Thus, people
are increasingly trying to address problems which they face. This social capital and structure
means that Detroit has the groundwork to collaborate and build something upon. The social
capital can be leveraged to build better relations between the various organisations (Economic
Analysis of Detoirt’s Food System, 2014; Alaimo, Resichal & Allen, 2010).
Different Organizations, Different Competencies
The domains and scale on which Detroit’s organisations work are very diverse. Take
urban agriculture for example. There are non-profit farms run for training and community
support purposes. There are others which are commercially operated. Also, some farms are
small operations, such as when an individual is farming in their own backyard. Others are
larger operations, such as D - Town farms. Along with this there are other areas of work
which organisations work on, such as food processing, green infrastructure, community
engagement and participation, etc.
Furthermore, each organisation may have different strengths, things they do
differently, targeting the same problem from different viewpoints, etc. which can potentially
bring them at loggerheads. Alternatively, these various viewpoints may allow for
incorporating a wide range of issues, knowledge, viewpoints, and values. Thus, these

strengths may be complementary and can be combined to tackle issues which may emerge
(Cohen & Reynolds, 2014).
Also, collective action and bargaining power can be gained by working together for
these organisations. This can be especially important when lobbying with the city
government or regional governments for certain regulations or laws to be changed or policies
be passed which may be good for the city.
Role of the Community
The community who is going to benefit from this network i.e. the people of Detroit
need to be involved. Community involvement can help identify what their expectations are
for the network. This can in turn guide the community involvement and engagement work
that is to be done by this network. Also, it will help the organisations serve them better as the
organisations may have some different ideas and the communities something else. Thus, the
solutions that are designed are more likely to succeed. Ultimately, the purpose of this network
is to serve the community needs and solve their problems through the organisations that are a
component of this network (Page, 2016).
Building a structure - A possible model for building the Network
The initial phases in building the network will be crucial. If in the beginning itself
factors which influence the environment and the situation in which the organisations and
eventually the network will work are not kept in mind, the chances of failure are bound to
increase. Therefore, there needs to be a plan in place to even start the initial process of
planning the network. To begin with there is a need to identify first who will be involved in
the process of developing the network plan. The process model described below can be one
way to do this.

1. Working Group
I envisage this as a working group involving stakeholders who may be in a position to
guide the initial phase effectively. Community leaders will be the crucial components of the
working group. They will bring in their expertise in community engagement and what are the
primary expectations the community may have. Also, they can bring legitimacy to the
working group as communities may have apprehensions about whether this network will
actually do the work or not. This confidence building phase will be an important part
(Cheever, 2006).
Then, people from non-profit organisations who may have relevant experience in
guiding and building collaborative partnerships will bring in their own unique perspectives
from this group of stakeholders. Identifying the right people will be crucial. This is because
the working group will extensively engage with people from different places and
backgrounds. So, people who may have good rapport, leverage, and respect in the community
across the board will be ideal.
Fig. 1. Model for developing the network

Thirdly, academics and researchers can be of immense help. They have the expertise
in the respective fields such as community engagement and participatory research, building
collaboration and partnerships, stakeholder engagement, incorporating feedbacks, building
organisational structures, networks, policies and even critiquing them. This can be very
important. Researchers involved will need to be invested in making the network a success
and yet be unbiased in identifying the deficiencies and pointing them out. This can help the
working group to work on these issues and resolve them.
Finally, policy makers, businesses and funders can also be taken into account. The
amount of engagement and the roles these actors may play will really depend on how
comfortable the stakeholders might feel about them. However, it should be kept in mind that
it is important to consider all stakeholders who might be present. All these actors are
interacting in the city and all are engaging in something or the other in the communities.
Actions may be liable to fail if they do not account for all the perspectives (Cohen &
Reynolds, 2014).
2. Stakeholder Consideration
The working group will try and identify which stakeholders need to be engaged with
and how their views will be considered. This is important as the working group will not have
too much time on its hand as there might be need to try and finish developing the plan as
soon as possible. Therefore, there will be a need to prioritise the stakeholders who will be
engaged. How many community members should we engage with so that the views across the
board are captured? What organisations should we engage with in the beginning to
understand their needs and what they seek to gain out of this? How should views of
researchers and practitioners be incorporated to learn about what is actually happening on the
ground?

Also, there will be a need to consider the mechanism for this engagement. Will there
be a need to do surveys? How will interviews bring in relevant views? Or should we consider
focus groups? These are some of the questions that will need to be answered to capture as
much information and views as possible.
3. Stakeholder Engagement
Following the identification of the relevant stakeholders, comes the main part of
actually engaging them. Focus groups, interviews, surveys, etc. will be undertaken. Then, the
relevant data should be analysed so understand the what are the things covered. At the same
time, there should be an attempt to capture as many stakeholders and views as possible so
that no one is left out. This phase will help in capturing what are the issues that concern
people.
4. Developing the plan with stakeholders
After capturing the views, expectations and information about the issues that concern
people, the crucial part of developing the plan for the network will come up. This phase will
consider what are the goals it should have, what is the purpose it will serve, what is the
structure that must be put in place, what are the mechanisms that should be put in place, what
are the roles individuals may have in the organisation, etc. Also, clear mechanisms should be
developed for facilitation, collaboration, feedback, and participation of the organisations and
citizens. Feedback mechanisms will be vital to gain information about the effectiveness of the
collaborations and how well people’s perspectives are being included. Also, there will be a
need to have a mechanism in place to ensure that there is adaptation and change in the
network over time. This is vital for the relevance of the organisation as situations and needs
might change over time.

5. Testing the plan
In this phase the plan which has been developed earlier should be tested. This can be a
pilot with a framework in which the organisations may interact and collaborate to solve
problems which citizens may face. It will be crucial to decide upon the ideal number of
organisations which should be engaged so that the plan developed can be thoroughly tested.
Too many organisations may mean that there is a lot of confusion about how it should be
done and the plan may fail outright. It should be done in a phased manner, with the number of
organisations engaged increasing with each phase. Again, learning and feedback will be
important.
6. Review
In this phase, the working group will essentially try and understand the successes and
failures out of the testing phase. It will be an analysis of what is working, what is not, what
needs to be changed and revised, and in essence look at the deficiencies. Another thing that
should be investigated should be the effectiveness in terms of matching and connecting
organisations, figuring out whether the issues or problems they are working on are solved or
not, how was community involved, and whether this network served them or not.
7. Repeat - Jumping again in the cycle
In essence, this whole cycle may be repeated. The working group can be revised
based on the needs identified and who else may be a relevant inclusion. Or if it seems that
there is some gap in identifying the needs or in the structure or if some stakeholders need to
be considered further. Or go straight to stakeholder engagement to learn about their views
and incorporating the feedback obtained. And then to again go back to the drawing board to
revise the plan, test it, and review it. Essentially, it will be a never-ending cycle of
engagement, review, revision, and improvement. This repetition should be done because this

a network and it will always have something emerge, and have new surprises and challenges.
Again, the importance of learning and evolving should be not forgotten even for the model
itself. As time passes, there might be a need to reorganise or even include new components
into the current one to effectively serve its purpose.
Outcomes Expected and Guidelines
The model should be an effective place to match the organisations and help them
collaborate. It should also be effective in solving the community problems and delivering
results. Another thing to be kept in mind is whether the model can aid in incorporating
community feedback and views. The organisations should not alone be the ones determining
where the project is heading to.
Further guidelines that should be kept in mind are listed below.
● Being Horizontal: This will allow information exchange and knowledge sharing
across the board instead of a top down or vertical structure. This also means that
organisations will have their own views on board freely and collaborate freely without
someone directing them. At the same time, community feedback should not be lost.
● Being Open: The network should not impose a cost or other barrier to participation by
organisations. However, there should be a mechanism in place to keep track of
organisations which are very interested, lesser interested, least interested so that
resources can be focused upon effectively.
● Being an Enabler, Not Decision Maker: The network has been created to help
organisations and communities collaborate. It should not have its own agendas and try
to impose on the organisations. It should act as a conduit and fast lane to connect and
a structure to collaborate. It should not end up concentrating power and become a

power structure in a landscape where a power structure already had negative
consequences. There should be freedom to walk in and do work with freedom, and if
necessary to walk out too.
● Nimble and Flexible: By being proactive about how the landscape might change, the
network can adapt to change. This will require us to keep the structure in mind. If it is
too structural, then it might have difficulties revising itself and changing. Also,
feedbacks will really help to evaluate performances.
● Incorporate Citizen Voices: Although it is primarily a way for organisations to
connect, it is also meant to better incorporate citizen voices in the initiatives for the
solutions that organisations may come up with.
Improving Resilience
The network is trying to aid organisations collaborate and work together on issues of
common interests, or even on unique issues which cannot be solved by the expertise of one
organisation alone. Also, it has citizens involved in trying to collaborate and solve their
problems. There is extensive information and knowledge exchange that might happen in this
network. As the different actors try and solve the problems in the city, there will be an
incorporation of this knowledge in the network and the actors. Thus, through continuous
interaction, learning and problem solving, the network will slowly build up the capacity of
the society and the organisations to deal with unique challenges.
This can be then a great way to build resilience in the community to deal with shocks
and change. With changing socio-economic and socio-ecological landscapes, unique
challenges will keep on arising in Detroit. By having the capacity to collaborate to tackle
these challenges through the organisations and citizens, there is also the possibility of
innovation. There might be solutions which might be developed and be completely unique

then before. Since, there is incorporation of feedback, learning and transformation
mechanisms in the network, it has the ability to self-organize in the face of challenges and
new situations. Thus, it has the ability to improve community resilience (Folke, 2006;
Andergassen, Nardini, & Ricottilli, 2015).
Efficiency becomes a key driver for fostering resilience in the city through the
network. If the efficiency of the network to find complementary organisations, build solutions
with communities and deliver solutions is low, it will make it more difficult to respond to
changes. At the same time, if too much emphasis is put on efficiency and reducing time taken
to develop solutions, some values and perspectives may not be effectively covered and
organisations may not be ideally matched or community perspectives incorporated, leading to
solutions which may not be appropriate. This may lower the resilience that may be otherwise
achieved by delving more into the relevant issue and devoting more time. Thus, there needs
to be a consideration of the efficiency and flexibility of time spent so that appropriate
solutions are developed (Lissack & Letiche, 2002).
Conclusion
Collaborative networks can greatly help in improving the pace of change in Detroit.
As was seen in this paper, developing a proper plan to start building the network can be an
important part of this. Following the outline given in this paper can be good way to develop
the plan for the network. With all things said, by considering the feedback and learning that is
involved in the model, the final plan can be drastically different and even the process, based
on the outcomes of the stakeholder engagement. Thus, the first phase itself may be followed
and then replaced by something which might be more relevant to the situation. There are
certain things that should also be kept in mind, such as being open, horizontal, proactive,
avoiding concentration of power, feedbacks, learning, nimble, flexible, and most importantly

incorporating citizen voice. Ultimately, this network can also serve as a self-organizing
adaptive system, lending itself well to improving the resilience of Detroit.

References
Alaimo, K., Reischal, T. M., & Allen, J. O. (2010). Community Gardens, Neighbourhood
Meetings and Social Capital. Journal of Community Psychology, Vol. 38, No. 4, 497–
514.
Andergassen, R., Nardini, F., & Ricottilli, M. (2015). Emergence and Resilience in a Model
of Innovation and Network Formation. Networks and Spatial Economics, 15(2), 293–
311. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11067-014-9262-6
Cohen, N., & Reynolds, K. (2014). Urban Agriculture Policy Making in New York’s “New
Political Spaces”: Strategizing for a Participatory and Representative System. Journal
of Planning Education and Research, 34(2), 221–234.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X14526453
Cheever, K. A. L. (2006). Collaborations in Public Service: Memphis Experience.
International Journal of Public Administration, 29(7), 533–555.
http://doi.org/10.1080/01900690500452369
Drake, L., & Lawson, L. J. (2014). Validating verdancy or vacancy? The relationship of
community gardens and vacant lands in the U.S. Cities, 40, 133–142.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cities.2013.07.008
Economic Analysis of Detoirt’s Food System. (2014). Econsult Solutions Inc. & Urbane
Development LLC. Detroit Food & Fitness Collaborative, Detroit.
Folke, C. (2006). Resilience: The emergence of a perspective for social–ecological systems
analyses. Global Environmental Change, 16(3), 253–267.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2006.04.002

Lemos, M. C., & Agrawal, A. (2006). Environmental Governance. Annual Review of
Environment and Resources, 31(1), 297–325.
http://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.energy.31.042605.135621
Lissack, M. R., & Letiche, H. (2002). Complexity, Emergence, Resilience, and Coherence:
Gaining Perspective on Organizations and their Study. Emergence: Complexity and
Organization, 4(3), 72+. Retrieved from
go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?p=EAIM&sw=w&u=lom_umichanna&v=2.1&id=GALE%
7CA140409969&it=r&asid=2396193bac8c92ed8a84417dd43b61e9
Page, S. (2016). A Strategic Framework for Building Civic Capacity. Urban Affairs Review,
52(4), 439–470. http://doi.org/10.1177/1078087415596848
The Detroit Ledger - Grant and Nonprofit Data. Retrieved December 13, 2016, from
https://www.detroitledger.org/
Watson-Thompson, J., Fawcett, S. B., & Schultz, J. A. (2008). Differential Effects of
Strategic Planning on Community Change in Two Urban Neighborhood Coalitions.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 42(1–2), 25–38.
http://doi.org/10.1007/s10464-008-9188-6

Collaborative Networks Understanding the possibilities for Detroit

More Related Content

What's hot

Similar to Collaborative Networks Understanding the possibilities for Detroit

More from Prathmesh Gupta

Collaborative Networks Understanding the possibilities for Detroit