• The nature of academic work can keep institutions isolated and
competing with each other rather than collaborating.
• A common roadblock is often semantic vagaries, terminology or
newly introduced jargon. Definitions and common ground must be forged.
• Ambiguous collaborative and project goals lead to confusion
at meetings that involve multiple organizations. Frontloading a collaborative
effort with a clear vision, mission, and set of objects, even if flexed
to accommodate input later, probably fosters more efficient and productive
meetings.
• Organizational structure (or lack of it) can have a direct affect
on the collaborative. Being clear about whom or which agency is leading
and what are the responsibilities of each participating organization
work to keep the lines of communication open.
• Time demands outside of Cluster responsibilities distract participants
and can prevent them from investing the proper amount of energy into
achieving project goals.
• Definitions of "collaboration" varied greatly, but
it should be understood that a certain amount of "messiness"
might be necessary. One participant offered the an encompassing definition:
"…collaboration involves a team of people who develop and
share a common vision and then by extension, common goals; who then
work together to actualize those goals and by extension see their vision
through to fruition." In this case, collaborative efforts: offer
broader perspectives when comprised of diverse and divergent individuals;
must be perceived to be mutually beneficial operations; and involve
considerably longer periods of time to accomplish goals as compared
with individual projects.
• In general, any attempt at changing or transforming institutions
can be considered "a difficult and hard slogging" process
that generates resistance as one outcome of that process. From this
case it is clear that higher education transformation is:
o difficult because of deeply rooted culture of academe;
o fueled by a misalignment of real actions and espoused missions
or visions;
o usually an evolutionary process and seldom revolutionary;
o depends on the level of institutional readiness for change;
o and involves a reconceptualization of current practice on the part
of key institutional actors.