The collaboration spectrum

This page explains the different ways that voluntary organisations may collaborate in order to bid for and deliver a commissioned contract.

What is it?

A loose network of organisations agreeing to collaborate.

Pros

• Members retain total independence and control/manage their own contracts
• Different organisations may lead on different projects and subcontract to others, thereby spreading the risk
• Often a first step to a formally constituted consortium 

Cons

• No legal entity for commissioners to contract with, so cannot hold contracts
• Does not allow for coordinated service delivery  

What is it?

A partnership with a nominated organisation taking the lead for contracting  purposes. 

Pros

• Able to bid for contracts
• Existing organisation with track record and known to commissioners
• Infrastructure already exists 

Cons

• Lead partner has sole legal accountability for contracts and bears all risk
• Lead partner could bring provision in-house (a risk for the subcontractors)

What is it?

A new legal entity is set up, with a membership structure ensuring that its members control it. 

Pros

• Owned and run by members
• Protects members from risk
• Single ‘front door’ to sector for commissioners
• Collective bargaining power

Cons

• Difficult to prove track record at early stages
• Significant funding and time required at start-up and development stages
• Vulnerable to fluctuations in commissioning patterns 

Read more about consortia.

What is it?

Where organisations undertake a full legal merger and become a single entity or group structure. 

Pros

• Is in the best interests of your charitable purposes and beneficiaries
• Enables a service to continue if an organisation becomes unsustainable
• Prevents duplication of services and creates efficiencies
• Creates an organisation with a larger turnover, therefore access to larger contracts
• Potentially greater profile and reach

Cons

• Volunteers, staff or financial supporters might not progress into the merged organisation.
• Highly disruptive to day-to-day business.
• Significant differences in culture or ways of working could prevent effective integration and may undermine the financial or other drivers
• Depending on the proposed new structure the process can be very complex, time consuming and (costly) professional advice required

Find out more about mergers.