This research investigated core business conflict that occurs amongst government agencies when working together in regional development projects and initiatives. The intent is to develop methods to manage this conflict and so enhance the delivery of regional development outcomes. The research problem explored is: ‘Government Department core business – managing the impact of potential conflicts on regional development projects and programs’The research involves three discipline areas – Government and governance, public sector management practices, and regional development. Government agency (GA) core business is determined by Government and delivered using public sector management practices that have shaped individual agency’s strategic plans, processes and systems for core business delivery. Regional development involves multiple agencies delivering their core business outcomes that contribute to regional development. Due to the focus by each agency on their own core business, core business conflict can occur when agencies work together.A literature review did not uncover literature or research about GA core business conflict, therefore this is a new area of investigation. The literature studies and reports investigated and discussed a related area – issues and impediment to Whole-of- Government (WOG) and ‘joined-up’ government initiatives.A qualitative inquiry methodology is used to build knowledge about this new area. The sample of participants is drawn from GAs’ staff who are involved in regional development projects and programs, or projects and programs that contribute to regional development. Data collection is through interviews and surveys with GAs’ representatives from 18 agencies, across three levels of Government and from two distinctly different regions (coastal and inland).Two aspects of core business conflict are investigated – fundamental core business conflict that involves the underpinning philosophy and ideology of an agency, and functional/operational core business conflicts that include the strategic plans, policies, procedures and systems involved in delivery of core business, which also influence the design of program and project guidelines, and determine funding and staff resourcing.Research findings contribute new knowledge and expand current knowledge regarding challenges and barriers to agencies working together. Findings also enhance the application of approaches and tools to facilitate effective WOG and collaborative agency work.The research has resulted in a ‘process’ model to resolve the research problem that applies a holistic and comprehensive operational approach to addressing core business conflict. The ‘process’ model builds on the research findings and draws on information and tools from the literature.The research has implications for theory, policy and practice in the three discipline areas involved in the research problem and as a new area investigated, has generated further research opportunities.

This research investigated core business conflict that occurs amongst government agencies when working together in regional development projects and initiatives. The intent is to develop methods to manage this conflict and so enhance the delivery of regional development outcomes. The research problem explored is: ‘Government Department core business – managing the impact of potential conflicts on regional development projects and programs’The research involves three discipline areas – Government and governance, public sector management practices, and regional development. Government agency (GA) core business is determined by Government and delivered using public sector management practices that have shaped individual agency’s strategic plans, processes and systems for core business delivery. Regional development involves multiple agencies delivering their core business outcomes that contribute to regional development. Due to the focus by each agency on their own core business, core business conflict can occur when agencies work together.A literature review did not uncover literature or research about GA core business conflict, therefore this is a new area of investigation. The literature studies and reports investigated and discussed a related area – issues and impediment to Whole-of- Government (WOG) and ‘joined-up’ government initiatives.A qualitative inquiry methodology is used to build knowledge about this new area. The sample of participants is drawn from GAs’ staff who are involved in regional development projects and programs, or projects and programs that contribute to regional development. Data collection is through interviews and surveys with GAs’ representatives from 18 agencies, across three levels of Government and from two distinctly different regions (coastal and inland).Two aspects of core business conflict are investigated – fundamental core business conflict that involves the underpinning philosophy and ideology of an agency, and functional/operational core business conflicts that include the strategic plans, policies, procedures and systems involved in delivery of core business, which also influence the design of program and project guidelines, and determine funding and staff resourcing.Research findings contribute new knowledge and expand current knowledge regarding challenges and barriers to agencies working together. Findings also enhance the application of approaches and tools to facilitate effective WOG and collaborative agency work.The research has resulted in a ‘process’ model to resolve the research problem that applies a holistic and comprehensive operational approach to addressing core business conflict. The ‘process’ model builds on the research findings and draws on information and tools from the literature.The research has implications for theory, policy and practice in the three discipline areas involved in the research problem and as a new area investigated, has generated further research opportunities.

<p>The new Welfare Reform in Norway consists of the establishment of a new welfare office; NAV office. The NAV office will open in all municipalities within 2010 as local partnerships between the state and the municipals as equal partners. The central government will keep responsibility for the national services and the local governments will keep responsibility for the locally provided welfare services. As such the NAV office will consist of two separate public servcelines, with the accountabilities for their individual services intact. The Government wished to keep the separation between the national and local governmental services but needed to ensure the provision of a more holistic, integrated and effective service delivery, more in tune with the public need. The aim was to provide a more joined-up welfare service and to put more effect behind the efforts to achieve the reform goals: increased work participation, more user-friendly services and more effective public administration. The NAV office as such becomes a local one-stop-shop.</p><p>The challenge of this partnership is that two separate, traditionally hierarchic public structures embark on a partnership venture where the more relational and both vertical and horizontal communicational skills are required, true to the spirit of the joined-up government model. Our aim with this study was to investigate how a few early onset NAV offices cope with this partnership stunt. We particularly wished to examine how the partners establish and use the important vertical and horizontal dimensions, and how the partnership manager operate to facilitate the partnership activities.</p><p>We mean that the focus of 4 partnership actors rather than two governmental partners is more correct with respect to depicting the situation in the local NAV partnerships and how the central partnership managerial duties are shared. We have developed a new model of how they divide the partnership responsibilities between them and the operations of an emergent essential partnership driving force. We have also due to the nature of the NAV partnership actors and the way they operate in the partnership, developed a new partnership model. This dialogue model is a more accurate picture of the NAV partnership than the original partnership model.</p><p>The early attempts to provide integrated services has not reached the potential we have hoped for, partially due to the allowance of the two partners to continue service production in the old way while the reform structure and following administrative challenges are ironed out. We believe that an understanding of the particularities of partnership management and the adherence of the relational qualities to the partnership structure is a prerequisite in successfully managing the NAV partnership and thus the reform goals. This needs to be the imminent focus of the reform participants.</p>

The new Welfare Reform in Norway consists of the establishment of a new welfare office; NAV office. The NAV office will open in all municipalities within 2010 as local partnerships between the state and the municipals as equal partners. The central government will keep responsibility for the national services and the local governments will keep responsibility for the locally provided welfare services. As such the NAV office will consist of two separate public servcelines, with the accountabilities for their individual services intact. The Government wished to keep the separation between the national and local governmental services but needed to ensure the provision of a more holistic, integrated and effective service delivery, more in tune with the public need. The aim was to provide a more joined-up welfare service and to put more effect behind the efforts to achieve the reform goals: increased work participation, more user-friendly services and more effective public administration. The NAV office as such becomes a local one-stop-shop. The challenge of this partnership is that two separate, traditionally hierarchic public structures embark on a partnership venture where the more relational and both vertical and horizontal communicational skills are required, true to the spirit of the joined-up government model. Our aim with this study was to investigate how a few early onset NAV offices cope with this partnership stunt. We particularly wished to examine how the partners establish and use the important vertical and horizontal dimensions, and how the partnership manager operate to facilitate the partnership activities. We mean that the focus of 4 partnership actors rather than two governmental partners is more correct with respect to depicting the situation in the local NAV partnerships and how the central partnership managerial duties are shared. We have developed a new model of how they divide the partnership responsibilities between them and the operations of an emergent essential partnership driving force. We have also due to the nature of the NAV partnership actors and the way they operate in the partnership, developed a new partnership model. This dialogue model is a more accurate picture of the NAV partnership than the original partnership model. The early attempts to provide integrated services has not reached the potential we have hoped for, partially due to the allowance of the two partners to continue service production in the old way while the reform structure and following administrative challenges are ironed out. We believe that an understanding of the particularities of partnership management and the adherence of the relational qualities to the partnership structure is a prerequisite in successfully managing the NAV partnership and thus the reform goals. This needs to be the imminent focus of the reform participants.

Over past decades, governments within Australia and throughout the Western world have sought to establish multi-sectoral planning processes that operate at a regional scale. Research on these processes has tended to focus on the challenges of ‘joining-up’ government and non-government sectors to create robust, effective and democratic regional structures and processes. Far less attention has been paid to integration within and between the various entities of government involved within these regional governance initiatives. This thesis, therefore, investigates the role of inter-governmental integration, or ‘whole-of-government’ activities, in relation to regional multi-sectoral governance. The institutional forms, enabling and constraining factors, and implications of inter-governmental arrangements between the various agencies and levels of government are examined. The study applies a sociocultural approach to institutional analysis. Commonly known as grid-group cultural theory, this approach provides a conceptual framework for identifying the fundamental social dynamics underlying differing forms of social organisation and governance. This framework specifies the primary forms, modus operandi and enabling social contexts of inter-institutional integration. These are, respectively: coordination by authority within hierarchy; cooperation through self-interest based collective action within competitive individualism; and collaboration through trust and a sense of commitment to the group within a communitarian social context. This study sought to investigate whole-of-government within regional governance through examination of two contemporaneous region-wide, multi-sectoral planning projects in Central Queensland, Australia. These were, namely, Central Queensland: A New Millennium, covering planning across a broad suite of issues, and the Fitzroy Basin Association, more specifically focussing on natural resource management planning for the region. Both bodies were in the process of implementing their regional plans at the time of this study. A qualitative case study methodology was employed in research, involving in-depth interviews with government officials, examination of project documents, and participation at meetings. The research data were analysed to identify the main processes and perceived outcomes of the two projects, and underlying factors relating to these. The two regional planning processes were generally perceived to have resulted in widely differing levels of success, and with many of the same government officials involved, there was considerable scope to contrast the whole-of-government structures and processes applied in the two cases. Analysis of the case material in the light of the theoretical framework and broader literature emphasised the nested and subordinate nature of regional whole-of-government efforts within the broader system of government. This system was revealed as characterised by horizontal fragmentation between departments and between jurisdictional tiers of government (Federal, State, and Local) but strong vertical integration within departments. The research highlighted the importance of central level political commitment to regional level integration efforts. Support is seen as particularly important in the form of 1) the political will to direct high-level coordination between departments and to advance cooperation between tiers of government; 2) sufficient resources allocated to regional plan implementation in order to motivate inter-governmental cooperation at a range of levels; and 3) the granting of sufficient autonomy to ensure effective devolution and regional level ownership that assists cooperation and collaboration at the regional level. In the light of the decisive importance of central level support, it was found that while high quality regional level leadership of regional whole-of-government processes is a necessary condition for their success, it is not a sufficient condition. To be effective, regional whole-of-government leadership requires both meaningful devolution and substantive central support. The study identified the multiple and contradictory forms of inter-governmental relations that comprise the social contexts at different levels within the broader system of government. In particular, the case study comparison suggested that success at the regional level relies on the application, at all levels, of forms and mechanisms of inter-governmental integration that are appropriate to the specific social contexts within which they are embedded.