Table 4

Comparison of strategies against collaborative public management framework

StrategyParticipationEstablishing ways of workingMobilising supportBuilding trust
Deployment of finance managersStrong:
  • Service delivery and finance managers involved.

Moderate:
  • Confusing reporting lines.

  • Unclear objectives and divided loyalties.

  • Informal ways of working established by those involved supported embeddedness.

Moderate:
  • Support across the system.

  • Finance managers began to understand the pressures and were motivated to ensure resources follow the need.

  • Senior finance managers concerned that deployed managers were too embedded.

Strong:
  • High levels of trust fostered between those involved by being part of same team.

  • Improved costing for provincial policies and district activities.

Monthly finance meetingModerate:
  • Finance and service delivery managers attended, but the latter not fully included.

Weak
  • District manager delegates chairing to finance manager.

  • Service delivery managers have limited influence.

  • Key opportunity to enable service delivery and finance managers to work together is missed.

Moderate:
  • CEOs felt their inclusion had improved resource allocation decision-making.

  • Provincial management saw no improvement in PFM, reducing their support.

Weak:
  • Relationships remained strained between service delivery managers/CEOs and district finance teams due to poor leadership.

Weekly review meetingStrong:
  • Only finance managers included because it is a PFM compliance step.

Moderate:
  • Efficient way of working for a PFM compliance activity.

  • Reliant on strategic direction from monthly finance meeting which was not forthcoming.

  • This has given weekly review committee undue decision-making power.

Moderate:
  • District finance satisfied that expenditure control has improved; acknowledge delays which cause frustration.

  • Service delivery managers did not support the prioritisation role this committee landed up playing.

Weak:
  • Added to existing tensions and trust deficits because of poor feedback and a lack of collaboration with other strategies.

Weekly touch-base meetingStrong:
  • All district managers included.

Strong:
  • District manager as leader.

  • Roles were clear.

Strong:
  • Support for the meeting was evident.

Moderate:
  • Better working relationships.

  • Remaining trust deficits because of the tension between PFM processes and urgency of service delivery.

  • CEOs, chief executive officers; PFM, public financial management.