Alberta post-secondary institutions have a great deal of experience in developing and sustaining collaborative partnerships. These collaborations may be between public post-secondary institutions such as colleges, technical institutes, and universities. The post-secondary institutions may be within Alberta, within Canada, or around the world. On one hand, these collaborations are often driven by mutual gain for the partnering institutions and the students they serve. Alberta North and eCampusAlberta are excellent examples. On the other hand, the collaborations are often constrained by the competitive environment that post-secondary institutions find themselves in.

Similarly, Alberta post-secondary institutions may collaborate with the private sector. These collaborations are often with business and industry. These partnerships offer several advantages (mutual gain) not only for the institutions, but for industry as well.

One of the most common drivers of collaboration between institutions as identified in the literature is that of simple necessity. Most commonly, institutions may not have the mandate or the academic or financial capability to mount a solo program. In Alberta, there is some unnecessary duplication of publicly-funded curriculum development across institutions. In some cases, institutions may or may not choose to collaborate to achieve improved quality and cost efficiencies. Practical Nursing is a case in point.

Several issues are associated with collaborative curriculum initiatives. The literature review did not reveal a single-best curriculum collaboration model or practice. The review focused on higher education, but also examined collaborative practices outside of higher education. Notably, the practices in the areas of physics research, sustainable environments, and the fashion industry provided some direction for collaborative policy and practice. For example, individual physics researchers not only strive to achieve their scholarly endeavours, but collaborate to achieve the “greater good.” This example is relevant to the Alberta post-secondary education system in that similar dichotomies exist at several levels, including the system and institution levels as well as the school, program, and faculty levels.

System and Institutional Levels

Not unlike most Canadian jurisdictions, there are several dichotomies within the Alberta post-secondary system. These dichotomies influence all levels of the system. In terms of curriculum collaboration, these dichotomies often serve not only as driving, but also constraining factors.

Since the inception of board governed colleges and technical institutes in the early 80s, Alberta institutions have experienced significant changes in the social, technology, environment, economic, and political landscapes. In general, colleges and technical institutes have been responsive and adaptive to these challenges.

In the recent past, there was a propensity for institutions to develop or acquire their own curriculum both at the course and program levels. In some cases, this tendency contributes to unnecessary duplication of curriculum development and evergreening efforts.

Over the past 15 years, institutions were encouraged to develop more businesslike and entrepreneurial organizational cultures. Once again, institutions responded and perhaps one outcome of this strategy was that institutions became increasingly competitive rather than cooperative and collaborative. Notable exceptions are Alberta North and eCampusAlberta.

More recently, to align with the vision of Campus Alberta, institutions are being encouraged through initiatives such as Campus Alberta and through financial incentives to become more collaborative—working together to create capacity, minimizing duplication of cost and effort, and creating learner-centred curriculum and more accessible programs.

School, Program and Faculty Levels

So, why collaborate? Why not compete and let the market sort it out? In a competitive environment, perhaps “we are better to do our own thing,” “be first to market,” “let students vote with their feet,” and “beat our competitors!“ There are a myriad of other issues: silo thinking, loyalty to the program, protection of the status quo, fear of change, workload issues, and copyright and moral rights issues. Traditionally, institutions of higher learning have encouraged autonomy and independence. At the same time, organizations beyond higher education have shifted toward cultures of collegiality and interdependence.

For collaboration to occur there needs to be some measure of interdependence; however, collaborators also need some level of autonomy. Previously the partnering institutions were involved in a curriculum brokerage model. While this model can work well, the institutions found a lack of interdependence (team) and insufficient autonomy to deliver the curriculum in a way that responds to regional needs and differences.

The formative and summative evaluation process, in the second year of the project, will inform the answer to this research question. However, in general terms, the focus on evaluation will be to determine the effectiveness and transferability of the Curriculum Commons Model and Toolkit.

Limited scope of collaboration

The Curriculum Commons Steering Committee (CCSC) contends that successful curriculum collaboration is dependent, in large part, on achieving a balance between interdependence (curriculum development and sustainability processes) and autonomy (flexible curriculum delivery at the regional level). The project will field test the Curriculum Commons Model and Toolkit with the Practical Nurse curriculum offered at the collaborating colleges. Practical Nursing is a regulated health discipline. The College of Licensed Practical Nurses of Alberta (CLPNA) regulates the curriculum through program approval requirements, standards, and criteria.

Thus, a limitation of this collaborative project is that the field test curriculum is Practical Nursing, which in Alberta is a regulated health discipline. The project is limited in its ability to make any curriculum changes without consultation and approval of CLPNA.

Defining the Scope of Collaboration

During the first months of the project, the CCSC contended that the scope of the collaboration should be limited to three curriculum elements: learning outcomes, course outlines, and learner assessment. The rationale for this position was that this approach would increase flexibility in curriculum delivery in order to respond to regional needs.

With dialogue, the members of CCSC found increasing value in extending the scope of curriculum collaboration to include not only the three elements, but other components of the curriculum. Other components include resource materials such as learning guides, instructor resource materials, and test banks.

The literature review stressed the importance of legal agreements. Trust is an important element of any collaborative partnership; however, legal frameworks provide an organizational reference which helps sustain the ongoing relationship. Trust is the foundation, and the legal agreement is the structure that sustains the partnership. Interestingly, the literature reviewed also revealed that much faculty collaboration in higher education occurs informally and in the absence of legal agreements.

Types of Bureaucratic Partnerships

There are some common regularities among collaborative forms. These include individual autonomy, the idea of pooling resources, and contracts that incorporate guidelines, operating principles, and problem solving processes. Similarly, there are attributes of collaboration that incorporate the idea of reciprocity, cooperation, shared vision, and joint planning.

Trust is a cornerstone of any collaborative partnership. Trust occurs at the level of the individual and the institution, as reflected in questions such as, do individuals trust each other? And, do institutions trust that their partners can deliver on their commitment to the partnership?

Memorandums of Understanding and Agreements

Legal agreements serve several purposes. They provide a means to help ensure clarity of purpose and clear lines of authority, as well as clear roles and decision making processes. The project is committed to developing a memorandum of understanding (MOU) that will address these and other purposes. One key aspect of the MOU is addressing the shift from broker model to co-ownership model.

Best Practices

The shift from broker to co-ownership model is a key feature of this project. Thus, the MOU that is developed will address most of the common elements listed below. Co-ownership has several important implications for the collaborating partners, and therefore a well-written and mutually understood and accepted MOU is a critical success factor.

Role of Institutional Contracts Administrators/Managers

Some post-secondary institutions have created roles that provide administrative support in the area of contract development. These positions are usually within the Finance or Administration departments. These individuals play an important role in facilitating contract development on behalf of their respective institutions. Typically, they provide a liaison between the collaborating institutions and their respective legal counsels. They prepare the final draft of an agreement prior to forwarding the document to legal counsel for a final signature-ready version.

Role of Legal Counsel

Most post-secondary institutions retain legal counsel. In very general terms, the lawyer’s role is to work with the institutional contract manager to finalize the contract for signature. Legal counsels also work to minimize risk exposure for their clients.

The stakeholder consultations revealed the importance of the collaborating partners working together to seek clear understanding and agreement around the elements listed above. The project has committed to developing an MOU that addresses the project governance.

The literature review did not reveal any one model that would encourage participation of the member institutions. Collaboration at the faculty level is quite common primarily within their respective institutions. However, faculty collaboration often occurs informally in order to help colleagues at another institution who are unable fund the program independently.

At the institutional level a key questions to consider is, what can be done together that could not be done separately? And, do we have the capacity as an individual college? Collaboration has a higher probability of success when faculty and institutions need each other in some way, and when incentives, including financial incentives, are in place.

At the system level, there are opportunities to provide leadership and incentives. Initiatives such as Campus Alberta and eCampusAlberta, and Alberta North are good examples of system-wide initiatives that provide leadership at the policy level and incentives to collaborate.

Key Success Factors

Shifting from a broker to a co-ownership model is about change and transition. In this case, the change is the shift from one model to another. Transition involves the people side of the equation: basically, those human processes that go with adapting and dealing with change.