5.4 Some Challenges for the VIA Water ICT-WIPs
Our study found that in spite of the structural and relational governance mechanisms
discussed above, some of the VIA Water ICT-WIPs still experience challenges. It
should be indicated that for some of the partnerships, not much information is
available yet to judge their performance, be it in terms of achieving partnership
objectives or the functioning of the partnership itself. The challenges discussed in
this section were identified in those partnerships that are far advanced in the
implementation of the pilot stage of their innovation processes or have just completed it. The challenges fall under the following four categories:
– Low levels of partner commitment: in some of the analysed partnerships (e.g. in
Kenya), this issue resulted in problems of poor delivery of expected contributions
from partnering organisations – in at least one partnership, this led to early
termination of the cooperation. The reasons cited for poor delivery include long
delays in providing expected resources, lack of prioritisation of partnership
activities by some partners and weak communication between partners. These
findings suggest that the partners who failed to deliver did not give adequate
importance to the partnership. Yet, research has shown that the strategic importance of a partnership for a company to achieve its goals determines what that
company can invest in the partnership (e.g. number of staff a company assign to
the partnership, amount of resources dedicated to the partnership) [76].
– Difficult transfer of tacit knowledge: challenges related to knowledge exchange
(and transfer) were reported in one partnership in Ghana. In this partnership,
translation of the knowledge of experts into a digital manual that could be used by
the operators with no experience at all proved to be difficult. Not surprising
though, because a big portion of the knowledge possessed by water sector experts
is tacit in nature (i.e. personal, context-dependant and based on practice and
experience in nature) and thus very difficult to formalise and communicate. The
best mechanism to transfer tacit knowledge to others is through sharing mutual
experiences and through active participation in real-time and face-to-face interactions [74, 77].
– Asymmetries in resource exchange: in one partnership in Ghana, the lead innovator faced the challenge to access the data and information (e.g. financial
reports) possessed by a working partner, despite of an existing MoU. This
could suggest that there were concerns about confidentiality and the need for an
agreement along these lines. However, in other cases, the failure to access a
partner’s data/knowledge base could result from issues to do with the partner
organisation’s management style (e.g. a hierarchical structure, rigid procedures
about sharing company data and information), which then needs to be understood
before starting the partnership. In this regard, the lead partner in this partnership
further reported that at the initial stages of the project, they focused more on
involving top managers of the working partner. However, it proved difficult to
work with them because they were always busy with other priorities and often out
194
S. Mvulirwenande and U. Wehn
Our study found that in spite of the structural and relational governance mechanisms
discussed above, some of the VIA Water ICT-WIPs still experience challenges. It
should be indicated that for some of the partnerships, not much information is
available yet to judge their performance, be it in terms of achieving partnership
objectives or the functioning of the partnership itself. The challenges discussed in
this section were identified in those partnerships that are far advanced in the
implementation of the pilot stage of their innovation processes or have just completed it. The challenges fall under the following four categories:
– Low levels of partner commitment: in some of the analysed partnerships (e.g. in
Kenya), this issue resulted in problems of poor delivery of expected contributions
from partnering organisations – in at least one partnership, this led to early
termination of the cooperation. The reasons cited for poor delivery include long
delays in providing expected resources, lack of prioritisation of partnership
activities by some partners and weak communication between partners. These
findings suggest that the partners who failed to deliver did not give adequate
importance to the partnership. Yet, research has shown that the strategic importance of a partnership for a company to achieve its goals determines what that
company can invest in the partnership (e.g. number of staff a company assign to
the partnership, amount of resources dedicated to the partnership) [76].
– Difficult transfer of tacit knowledge: challenges related to knowledge exchange
(and transfer) were reported in one partnership in Ghana. In this partnership,
translation of the knowledge of experts into a digital manual that could be used by
the operators with no experience at all proved to be difficult. Not surprising
though, because a big portion of the knowledge possessed by water sector experts
is tacit in nature (i.e. personal, context-dependant and based on practice and
experience in nature) and thus very difficult to formalise and communicate. The
best mechanism to transfer tacit knowledge to others is through sharing mutual
experiences and through active participation in real-time and face-to-face interactions [74, 77].
– Asymmetries in resource exchange: in one partnership in Ghana, the lead innovator faced the challenge to access the data and information (e.g. financial
reports) possessed by a working partner, despite of an existing MoU. This
could suggest that there were concerns about confidentiality and the need for an
agreement along these lines. However, in other cases, the failure to access a
partner’s data/knowledge base could result from issues to do with the partner
organisation’s management style (e.g. a hierarchical structure, rigid procedures
about sharing company data and information), which then needs to be understood
before starting the partnership. In this regard, the lead partner in this partnership
further reported that at the initial stages of the project, they focused more on
involving top managers of the working partner. However, it proved difficult to
work with them because they were always busy with other priorities and often out
194
S. Mvulirwenande and U. Wehn