Failure of traditional politics or organizations. In some situations, traditional politics or organizations have failed to remedy the situation. The reasons may be internal or external. Some reasons could include:

• Conflicting political agenda, or competition among organizations or branches/levels of government.

• Conflict within an organizational stakeholder, or an otherwise dysfunctional entity.

• Concern over upcoming elections.

• Conflict or litigation among the stakeholders leading to impasse.

• Fear on the part of those empowered to act.

• Fragmentation of power and authority, overlapping jurisdictions or cross jurisdiction issues.

• "Decision avoidance."

• No person or organization looking out for the "commons."
  The "loudest" work to get their way. 

It is possible that a collaborative process could address these failures.

Other reasons to collaborate could include the following:

• Increasing shift to responsibilities to citizens.

• Sustainable solutions, better outcomes.

• Builds community and a sense of ownership of the outcome.

• Crisis avoidance.

• Works from real rather than perceived interests.

• Supports learning from others and mutual commitment.

• Builds rather than wastes "social capital."'

• Get out of "gridlock" and impasse.

• Greater business sector involvement in matters of social concern.

• Insufficient resources of any organization to deal with the issue.

• Context in which it is clear that no single organization can accomplish the task.

• Lack of a larger vision of coherent action (so it must be found).

• Apathy in stakeholders or citizens (so they must be motivated).

• Data and data assessment are complex and could be improved in joint efforts.

• Lack of trust (it needs to be built).

• Hidden agenda (so need an open process).

• Complexity of problems and potential solutions.

• The real problem has not been identified.

• Any solution to the problem or issue will need broad acceptance for implementation or sustainability.

Benefits of collaboration. Include:

• Increased quality of decisions that comes directly from the quality of engagement.

• Combining and ensuring the best of personal and institutional talent.

• Open dialogue increases the ability to understand and directly address needs.

• Greater control over the forces affecting the parties.

• Increased efficiency, reduced transactional costs.

• Increased creative capacity to address problems and issues.

• Reduction in decision making errors.

• Shared risk among collaborators.

• Increased work satisfaction in effective collaborative groups.

• Providing increased emotional, professional and institutional support and companionship.

• Increased program impact, dissemination and ability to scale up. 

• Stronger moral foundation permitting institutions to speak with one voice on important matters and, where appropriate, lobby and influence funding options.

Although perhaps appearing self interested, organizations may collaborate to:

	Increase its own capacity by associating with other skilled organizations.
	Assist an organization in moving to a new subject area.
	Help an organization attract third party capital (donors or investors).
	Provide organization and its personnel great visibility and experience.

All of these lead to situations where people and organizations fail to address important community issues - and collaboration may be a way of addressing this situation.

To achieve these benefits, we propose a form of collaboration that is much more than just working together - rather a deeper integration of relationship, effective communication and a commitment to joint learning. 

Concept sources include : Collaborative Leadership, Chrislip and Larson, 1991; Collaborative Leadership Handbook, Chrislip, Jossey-Bass, 2002.