The Case for Collaboration

Competition is a defining component of a capitalist economy. It has positive effects – encouraging companies to design new products, reduce prices and improve services. Unfortunately, it is also very wasteful – the wheel is reinvented several times before the optimum design is adopted.

The Housing Association sector is considered to be outside or at least partially immune from the worst aspects of capitalism, and superficially collaboration and sharing seem to be the norm. It sponsors collaborative bodies such as the NHF and CIH to protect and advance our operating environment, but there are precious few examples of collaborative working. It is almost as if the HAs prefer to merge than work together.

Why should we, and why don’t we?

Housing Associations face existential threats. Successive governments have encouraged private developers, local authorities and For-Profit registered providers to beat us at our own game. In addition, financial support has literally been decimated over the past forty years.

Today most HAs invariably focus on the urgent – damp and mould, re-cladding, regulatory requirements, and compliance. The political class and their agents set the agenda and the sector responds. In reality the most important issues are hiding in plain sight. The declining quality of our homes, the quality of the data that could demonstrate it, the inadequacy of our investment plans, the net zero challenges and the economic realities for customers and organisations alike often sit on the “too difficult” pile.

Today’s issues are so big that they demand a combined effort to address them effectively. Housing Association must come together to create industry-wide solutions.

Today the sector spends billions on products and services, including technology. If this investment were brought together, we could get many more bangs for our buck. As one transformation leader put it: “If the larger HAs, which spend multiple millions on their system implementations, clubbed together and built one platform and common processes for the sector, it would be a much better investment, with much better outcomes for customers”.

Between us we have so much knowledge – of what works well and what does not. We love to share what we are doing at conferences and in the pages of Inside Housing. But this is not the same as conscious learning. What passes for collaboration is often just communication of good news stories without critical evaluation. We also have a lot of skills between us – some of which are pivotal today and in short supply – for example in advanced technology design, data, effective procurement, security and how to bring together the management of physical assets with excellent tenancy management. Collaborating means pooling resources, knowledge, and skills.

This collective effort often leads to quicker, more efficient problem-solving and innovative solutions. The wisdom of the crowd is very powerful and knocks off the rough edges. In addition, by sharing experiences openly, collaborators can often shortcut the “pilot and experiment” stage of designing new approaches. If we were more open to sharing (anonymised) data we would have much more insight and knowledge. We could interrogate it to see who is actually doing very well with certain problems and identify best practice and learning.

For a Housing Association making a major change or introducing new technology is risky – operationally, financially, and reputationally. Many of us feel overwhelmed and delay, reach for the “tried and tested” but underwhelming front runner, or rely on consultants who may or may not know more than we do, but whom we can blame if it goes wrong.

Collaboration can share the risks involved in exploring new ventures, technologies, or markets.

We can all agree that everything we do must make things better for our residents. Giving a good, affordable service means we should set aside personal, local and organisational considerations. If we focus one the customer rather than ourselves we could really move forward here. Sharing resources can directly reduce costs. For example, when a group of HAs commission collaborative research or set up joint ventures, the cost will be a fraction of going it alone. Collaborative efforts can result in better products and services, and potentially lower costs.

Doing something new for the first time can be risky and expensive. Collaborators can help each other do new things eg. create a market rent arm, digitise the call centre, create a new asset management solution, when individually we may have limited experience or presence. Collaboration offers an opportunity for organisations to learn from one another, adopting best practice that might have taken years to develop independently.

Collaboration can lead to industry standards, which benefit all players by providing clarity and reducing uncertainty. The lack of these standards is currently holding back the sector and its suppliers. There is a strong case for working with the regulator, and other stakeholders to create a base line for all Registered Providers. We need to honestly recognise how much we have in common – probably at least 80% of what HA 1 does is the same as HA 2 – rather than continually celebrating our differences. Collaboration can lead to stronger, trust-based relationships which could benefit our residents who rarely care who their supplier is.

Obviously if it were easy, it would already be happening. There are a number of very real barriers to collaboration.

Different organisations may have different goals, and unless these are aligned, collaboration can be challenging. This is why focusing on one or two really big issues is the way to go. If we can stride forward on asset management, or standard setting, or data, say, and make a valued difference, we could later build on our success.

Collaboration involves a lot of coordination, which can become complex and time-consuming. There is no resource within or between the sector to do this work. It is possible to imagine that those who have a serious interest in service improvement (DLUC, RSH, Ombudsman, political parties), those who represent the sector (NHF, CIH, Housemark), or consumer organisations (National Tenants Organisations), could instruct, insist, lead, encourage or even suggest that this would be a good thing they could get behind.

The RSH could pay for an independent organisation to manage collaboration to ensure processes and data management are aligned. Alternatively, the sector could, through its regional or sectoral groupings (G15, Placeshapers, G320 etc), take the initiative, pool resources to hire staff or employ an organisation to do the work, including effective project management and communication.

There are clearly cultural barriers to collaboration. Working across organisational barriers is challenging, and we need to be in serious pain, and possess a low ego, to be able to ask others for help. Humility and honesty are required, plus an ability to listen and prioritise the customer over narrow organisational priorities. This is why it would be best if those with power over us insisted on it happening, as HAs prefer to do what they are mandated to do over what they could or should do.