Partnership Assessment Tool 2
What is PAT2?
PAT2 is a tool to assist those working in and responsible for inter-agency partnership working - one of the key proposals arising from the 2006 White Paper, Our health, our care, our say, and from the local government White Paper, Strong and Prosperous Communities. Partnerships need to know how well they are working, and they need to be able to improve, but assessment is a complex process. The most appropriate action is to undertake regular audits, and PAT2 is designed to support partners in the monitoring and auditing of partnership working. It is a shorter and revised version of the existing Partnership Assessment Tool.
The Purpose of PAT2?
The purpose of PAT2 is to provide a relatively simple and cost-effective way of assessing the effectiveness of partnership working. It enables a rapid appraisal of the ‘health’ of a partnership and identifies areas of strength and weakness, thereby enabling a focus upon remedial action commensurate with the significance of the problems.
PAT2 can do three main things:
- provide material to conduct an assessment on the current effectiveness of partnership working;
- with repeated use, allow changes in partnering activity to be charted over time;
- provide a common framework and vocabulary for partners to develop a jointly owned approach to tackling some of the barriers to effective team working
On its own, PAT2 it will not reveal how problems associated with poor partnering should be addressed. Where the findings expose weaknesses, tailored interventions will need to be used that reflect local needs and circumstances. The framework is generic and the purpose
The Four Stages of PAT2?
Stage 1: Preparation
It is important at the start of the process that partners agree the reasons for using the tool. Is the process to be mainly developmental, more of a routine audit or part of a more extensive remedial programme? Opening up this initial debate is often an important step in individual partners becoming more honest in their views about the workings of the partnership.
Stage 2: Gathering Data
At the heart of PAT2 is the process of gathering data about the partnership through answers to a questionnaire. Individual in the partnership are asked to respond to 30 statements by reflecting on their experiences and selecting from a range of possible responses.
Stage 3: Analysis and Interpretation of Data
The individual scores of partner members are brought together to provide a picture of how the whole partnership is working, and to compare the responses of different partners.
Stage 4: Action Planning for Alternative Findings
Finally, an assessment has to be made about what the scores mean about the partnership, and what action to take in the light of this exercise. This will involve determination of priorities and drawing up action plans to ensure change happens.
Stage 1: Preparation
For PAT2 to work properly there needs to be clear agreement about the reasons for using it. There are several possibilities:
- to undertake a series of regular 'health checks' as part of a wider programme of service monitoring and review
- to explore and expose problems or to confirm apparent success
- a prospective exercise undertaken by partners just embarking on partnering with a view to identification of ‘success’ factors
- a retrospective exercise by partners renewing or revising their joint working arrangements.
Whatever the purpose, it is important that everyone affected has the chance to discuss the reasons for using the tool and what is expected to be achieved. Facilitation of the process is important at two stages in particular:
- in introducing partners to the wider partnership context and the assessment process, and in helping them become familiar with the tool
- in analysis of findings across the partners, examination of issues arising and action planning
Often this facilitation will be conducted internally by someone from one of the parent agencies. Where this is the case, then it should be made clear to participants that this activity has the strong support of senior managers and policy-makers. Sometimes, and especially where it is expected to be difficult or sensitive, it may be better facilitated externally by agencies or individuals with experience in this area. Another important preliminary step is to be clear about - and to communicate - what will conclude the process in terms of feedback and action planning. Those participating need to be assured not only that taking the trouble to undertake the assessment is worthwhile but that they can be, and should be, frank and honest in their responses.
Stage 2: Collecting Data
This is the main part of the exercise. In this section you will find 30 statements about partnership working grouped around five principles. In relation to each statement you are being asked to do three things:
- answer the question realistically: make a judgement about how you think the partnership actually is, not how you would like it to be;
- give your opinion as an individual: this is about what you think, rather than trying to reflect what the partnership thinks;
- make your comments: next to each score box there is room for comment in an expanding box, and the more you use this box the better PAT2 will be an accurate tool
In each section you are asked to respond to a number of statements about the partnership. All you have to do is decide your opinion on these statements by choosing one of four options, each of which carries a score which we would like you to insert in the appropriate box:
- Strongly Agree [SA] – Score 4
- Agree [A] – Score 3
- Disagree [D] – Score 2
- Strongly Disagree [SD] – Score 1
Principle 1 - Recognise & Accept the Need for Partnership
Score 4 |
Score 3 |
Score 2 |
Score 1 |
There is a widespread understanding that the action of any one partner has significant consequences for all of the other partners |
|
|
|
|
We cannot achieve our own goals without some contribution from our partners |
|
|
|
|
Working in partnership is the main way in which we must conduct our business |
|
|
|
|
The need for partnership working has been successfully communicated at all levels of the member agencies |
|
|
|
|
We all know what needs to be done for this partnership to work |
|
|
|
|
There are no significant groups or individuals opposed to the principle of partnership working |
|
|
|
|
Please briefly suggest ways in which you think performance on this principle could be improved:
|
Total Score
|
|
Principle 2 - Develop Clarity & Realism of Purpose
Score 4 |
Score 3 |
Score 2 |
Score 1 |
The partnership is underpinned by a clear vision that is shared by all parties |
|
|
|
|
The partnership is driven by strong values and principles that are accepted and understood by all parties |
|
|
|
|
Clear and realistic joint aims and objectives have been established for the partnership |
|
|
|
|
The anticipated outcomes of partnership working have been clearly identified and are well understood |
|
|
|
|
The reasons why each partner is engaged in the partnership are understood and accepted |
|
|
|
|
The areas where early partnership success is most likely have been identified and agreed |
|
|
|
|
Please briefly suggest ways in which you think performance on this principle could be improved:
|
Total Score
|
|
Principle 3 - Ownership & Trust
Score 4 |
Score 3 |
Score 2 |
Score 1 |
There is widespread ownership of the partnership within and across all partners |
|
|
|
|
There is a clear commitment to partnership working from the most senior levels of each of the partners |
|
|
|
|
The way the partnership is conducted recognises and values each partner’s contribution |
|
|
|
|
Costs and benefits arising from the partnership are fairly distributed among all partners |
|
|
|
|
Levels of trust within the partnership are high enough to encourage significant risk-taking |
|
|
|
|
There is zero tolerance of individuals and agencies who fail to work constructively within the partnership |
|
|
|
|
Please briefly suggest ways in which you think performance on this principle could be improved:
|
Total Score
|
|
Principle 4 - Robust Governance Arrangements
Score 4 |
Score 3 |
Score 2 |
Score 1 |
All significant and relevant stakeholders are represented in the partnership governance arrangements |
|
|
|
|
Each partner’s areas of responsibility are clear and understood |
|
|
|
|
The way in which partnership business is conducted is open and fair |
|
|
|
|
It is clear what resources (both financial and non-financial) each partner brings to the partnership |
|
|
|
|
The partnership has dedicated staffing to support its working arrangements |
|
|
|
|
There are clear lines of accountability for the performance of the partnership as a whole |
|
|
|
|
Please briefly suggest ways in which you think performance on this principle could be improved:
|
Total Score
|
|
Principle 5 - Monitor Measure & Learn
Score 4 |
Score 3 |
Score 2 |
Score 1 |
The partnership has robust procedures in place for monitoring its progress |
|
|
|
|
Clear criteria exist to judge the extent to which partnership goals are achieved |
|
|
|
|
Clear criteria are in place to judge the way in which the partnership itself is working |
|
|
|
|
Partnership achievements are well communicated amongst the partner agencies and beyond |
|
|
|
|
The key measure of success is the effect the partnership has upon the lives of service users |
|
|
|
|
The partnership shows evidence of learning and changing in the light of experience |
|
|
|
|
Please briefly suggest ways in which you think performance on this principle could be improved:
|
Total Score
|
|
Stage 3: Analysis & Interpretation of Data
Having filled in the scores for each section of PAT2 Readiness Tool, you now need to interpret the meaning of the scores for each section, as well as the aggregate score. This is detailed in the boxes below.
Principle 1: Recognise & Accept the Need for Partnership
A: 21-24 |
There is a widespread understanding that the action of any one partner has significant consequences for all of the other partners |
B: 16-20 |
We cannot achieve our own goals without some contribution from our partners |
C: 11-15 |
Working in partnership is the main way in which we must conduct our business |
D: 10 or less |
The need for partnership working has been successfully communicated at all levels of the member agencies |
Principle 2: Develop Clarity & Realism of Purpose
SCORE |
INTERPRETATION |
A: 21-24 |
The partnership is underpinned by a clear vision that is shared by all parties |
B: 16-20 |
The partnership is driven by strong values and principles that are accepted and understood by all parties |
C: 11-15 |
Clear and realistic joint aims and objectives have been established for the partnership |
D: 10 or less |
The anticipated outcomes of partnership working have been clearly identified and are well understood |
Principle 3: Ownership & Trust
SCORE |
INTERPRETATION |
A: 21-24 |
There is widespread ownership of the partnership within and across all partners |
B: 16-20 |
There is a clear commitment to partnership working from the most senior levels of each of the partners |
C: 11-15 |
The way the partnership is conducted recognises and values each partner’s contribution |
D: 10 or less |
Costs and benefits arising from the partnership are fairly distributed among all partners |
Principle 4: Robust Governance Arrangements
SCORE |
INTERPRETATION |
A: 21-24 |
All significant and relevant stakeholders are represented in the partnership governance arrangements |
B: 16-20 |
Each partner’s areas of responsibility are clear and understood |
C: 11-15 |
The way in which partnership business is conducted is open and fair |
D: 10 or less |
It is clear what resources (both financial and non-financial) each partner brings to the partnership |
Principle 5: Monitor Measure & Learn
SCORE |
INTERPRETATION |
A: 21-24 |
The partnership has robust procedures in place for monitoring its progress |
B: 16-20 |
Clear criteria exist to judge the extent to which partnership goals are achieved |
C: 11-15 |
Clear criteria are in place to judge the way in which the partnership itself is working |
D: 10 or less |
Partnership achievements are well communicated amongst the partner agencies and beyond |
Aggregation of Data
A final step in data interpretation is to form an overall view on the significance of the aggregate PAT2 scores in order to decide what further steps – if any – to take. The first step here is to complete the aggregate scoring box below, and compare these with the following table on how these scores should be interpreted.
PAT2 PRINCIPLE |
MAXIMUM SCORE |
ACTUAL SCORE |
Principle 1: Recognise & Accept the Need for Partnership |
24 |
|
Principle 2: Develop Clarity & Realism of Purpose |
24 |
|
Principle 3: Ownership & Trust |
24 |
|
Principle 4: Robust Governance Arrangements |
24 |
|
Principle 5: Monitor Measure & Learn |
24 |
|
TOTAL SCORE |
Maximum = 120 |
Actual = |
Interpretation of Aggregate PAT2 Score
SCORE |
INTERPRETATION |
105 + |
A highly effective partnership that represents a model of good practice |
80-104 |
A partnership that is developing well but is in need of some further support |
55-79 |
A partnership that needs significant improvement |
54 or less |
A fragmented partnership that shows no real prospect of improvement |
The Dartboard Presentation
The final scores and their interpretation can be accessed pictorially on an integration dartboard, along with a summary analysis of team functioning.
Put the total score for each principle in the appropriate segment below and shade that segment
The profile shows overall performance across all five principles. The nearer the shading is to the centre of the diagram then the healthier is the assessment of team performance. It is possible for a team to be doing relatively well on some aspects and less well on others.
Stage 4: Action Planing for Alternative Findings
The principal aim of PAT2 is to enable generic assessment of partnering. It cannot offer detailed prescriptions for addressing the problems identified in any particular relationship. How any weaknesses or problems are tackled – or how strengths are reinforced and replicated – must depend upon local circumstances and is likely to require specialist organisational development expertise. What is clear generally, however, is that whatever the findings, the assessment process must be seen to conclude with a plan for action. Three broad alternative scenarios are outlined below.
ACTION PLANNING FOR ALTERNATIVE FINDINGS
4a | 4b | 4c |
Assessment suggests the partnership is working well; partners only need to consider how often to build in a regular review | Assessment suggests the partnership is working well in some respects, but there are concerns about others. Partners need to decide how to address these areas of concern | Assessment highlights significant areas of concern that require urgent attention and a detailed plan of action |
Taking the first case (4a) if the findings show a broad consensus about the general strength and 'health' of the partnership, the action planning may need to consist of little more than agreeing how and when to undertake the next assessment. This could be a repeat exercise with the same individuals, or it could also entail assessments at different levels in the partner organisations. There might also be an agreement that no further formal assessment takes place unless there are important changes within the partnership or the context within which it operates. Whatever the apparent success of current partnering, it will be worthwhile acknowledging that even the healthiest should have regular health checks.
In the case of the second broad scenario (4b) where some problems or weaknesses are identified, the action planning will focus on these areas. Where there is little sensitivity about the issues raised – whether individual or organisational – more detailed analysis of what underlies the assessment findings may well be conducted internally and informally. Where there is greater sensitivity, external facilitation may be preferable. Such exercises should help to provide:
- structured information about people's perceptions throughout the partnership;
- opportunities to compare and contrast the views of different members of the partnership, thereby providing an opportunity to plan remedial action;
- a process which in itself opens up a debate that introduces more openness and transparency about partners' views on the shared mission.
In the case of the third scenario (4c) action planning will need to embrace extensive and possibly urgent remedial action. This may involve a thorough re–examination of the partnership, from aims and objectives through structures and processes to working practices. Indeed, if the problems are serious enough it may require that the partnership is dissolved and re-formed. Whatever the outcome, it is strongly recommended that skilled and trusted external facilitators are used for scenarios 4b and 4c.
Once again, the benefits of using this assessment tool ought to be a clear indication of the nature and scale of problems, of where action is needed most and where it is required most urgently. And although it is a primarily diagnostic tool, the framework also provides a general prescriptive account of how team working can be strengthened. It is for those involved in particular relationships to apply these general principles to their local circumstances.
Getting Further Help
In those cases where further help is needed, it will usually be best to bring in external support and facilitation. It is not appropriate in this tool to recommend any specific consultancies, though the tool has been devised by Professor Bob Hudson who can be emailed at bob@bobhudsonconsulting.com. Other sources of general support and information are:
The design task for PAT2 has been undertaken by Densen Digital Experiences: www.densen.co.uk to whom technical queries can be directed.