matters of the innovation project and give comments on the project outline, progress
and outputs where appropriate.
5.3.2 Relational Governance Mechanisms
The findings of our study suggest that – in addition to structural governance
mechanisms – the VIA Water ICT-WIPs rely on trust in several regards. Some of
the reasons described in the partnerships’ documents (notably project proposals) on
why involved organisations decided to team up illustrate the importance of trust as a
governance mechanism in these partnerships. The reasons include previous cooperation in other contexts, belief in the positive intentions of the partners about solving
targeted water pressing needs, shared beliefs in the potential innovations being
developed, clarity of incentives to partners to implement the projects. For example,
the fact that some of the VIA Water ICT-WIPs involved organisations who had
worked together in the past implies that they got the opportunity to learn about each
other’s honesty and ability to comply with the promises and agreements they make.
The partnerships were based on already existing relational trust. This could explain
to some extent why some partners in such partnerships did not even bother about
signing binding cooperation agreements – they believed that their counterparts
would deliver on their duties as agreed informally. However, as described in Sect.
5.4, not every partner came up to expectations. The fact that many ICT-WIPs give
importance to relational governance could also be associated with the national
culture of the countries where partnership members come from. For example, our
analysis showed that many of the lead innovators come from the Netherlands
(Annex); and, with its low scores on Hofstede’s [63] “power distance” and “uncertainty avoidance” cultural dimensions,
9 the Netherlands is known to be a high trust
and less bureaucratic country. These cultural characteristics imply that Dutch organisations involved in partnerships would generally prefer relational governance
mechanisms or less constraining structural mechanisms (e.g. simple MoUs instead
of legally binding contracts).
However, there are many other ICT-WIPs that were created just to respond to the
VIA Water funding opportunity, i.e. partnerships in which members had not worked
together previously. In these cases, the level of trust needed to effectively execute the
partnerships needed to be cultivated throughout the implementation of the partnerships. The mechanisms to establish and maintain trust that were observed in the
ICT-WIPs include recognition of the importance of other partners’ contributions
(e.g. by assigning specialised tasks and consulting them on matters that are subject to
their expertise), openness and transparent communication (e.g. use of drop box and
other online information systems shared by all team members throughout the
project) and collaborative decision-making (e.g. through joint committees).
9 On these two dimensions, the Netherlands has the scores (out of 100) of 38 and 53, respectively.
Promoting Smart Water Systems in Developing Countries Through. . .
193
and outputs where appropriate.
5.3.2 Relational Governance Mechanisms
The findings of our study suggest that – in addition to structural governance
mechanisms – the VIA Water ICT-WIPs rely on trust in several regards. Some of
the reasons described in the partnerships’ documents (notably project proposals) on
why involved organisations decided to team up illustrate the importance of trust as a
governance mechanism in these partnerships. The reasons include previous cooperation in other contexts, belief in the positive intentions of the partners about solving
targeted water pressing needs, shared beliefs in the potential innovations being
developed, clarity of incentives to partners to implement the projects. For example,
the fact that some of the VIA Water ICT-WIPs involved organisations who had
worked together in the past implies that they got the opportunity to learn about each
other’s honesty and ability to comply with the promises and agreements they make.
The partnerships were based on already existing relational trust. This could explain
to some extent why some partners in such partnerships did not even bother about
signing binding cooperation agreements – they believed that their counterparts
would deliver on their duties as agreed informally. However, as described in Sect.
5.4, not every partner came up to expectations. The fact that many ICT-WIPs give
importance to relational governance could also be associated with the national
culture of the countries where partnership members come from. For example, our
analysis showed that many of the lead innovators come from the Netherlands
(Annex); and, with its low scores on Hofstede’s [63] “power distance” and “uncertainty avoidance” cultural dimensions,
9 the Netherlands is known to be a high trust
and less bureaucratic country. These cultural characteristics imply that Dutch organisations involved in partnerships would generally prefer relational governance
mechanisms or less constraining structural mechanisms (e.g. simple MoUs instead
of legally binding contracts).
However, there are many other ICT-WIPs that were created just to respond to the
VIA Water funding opportunity, i.e. partnerships in which members had not worked
together previously. In these cases, the level of trust needed to effectively execute the
partnerships needed to be cultivated throughout the implementation of the partnerships. The mechanisms to establish and maintain trust that were observed in the
ICT-WIPs include recognition of the importance of other partners’ contributions
(e.g. by assigning specialised tasks and consulting them on matters that are subject to
their expertise), openness and transparent communication (e.g. use of drop box and
other online information systems shared by all team members throughout the
project) and collaborative decision-making (e.g. through joint committees).
9 On these two dimensions, the Netherlands has the scores (out of 100) of 38 and 53, respectively.
Promoting Smart Water Systems in Developing Countries Through. . .
193