Collaborative organizations that span government entities, nonprofit groups, and a variety of stakeholders have long been heralded as key players in addressing complex regional environmental challenges. These bodies, which are often established with goals such as preserving critical watersheds, embody a collective effort to pool resources, expertise, and authority. However, despite significant investments and well-intentioned planning, these organizations frequently falter in realizing their stated objectives. A recent groundbreaking study sheds light on a pivotal factor influencing the success of these collaborations: the administrative strategies they employ to navigate the critical juncture between planning and implementation.
This investigation, spearheaded by Graham Ambrose, an assistant professor of public administration at North Carolina State University, highlights a pervasive issue in collaborative governance. Ambrose notes that while these groups excel during the planning phase—meticulously crafting strategies and setting objectives—they often struggle to translate those plans into actionable project execution. This failure to effectively transition represents a bottleneck that undermines long-term success and threatens the sustainability of watershed preservation efforts.
Drawing upon an extensive analysis of four case studies and a systematic review of existing literature, Ambrose and his colleagues introduce what they term the “mixed services transition approach.” Contrary to the traditional model, which tends to treat planning and implementation as discrete, sequential steps, this approach advocates for a more integrated process. Organizations adopting this method initiate small-scale implementation activities even as planning is still underway. This might include launching pilot projects, proactively securing diversified funding sources beyond initial grants, and beginning to adapt organizational structures to better suit the evolving demands of implementation.
The empirical foundation of this study is notable for its breadth and depth. Researchers examined nearly 30 years of data from 31 collaborative organizations working within four significant U.S. watershed regions: the Delaware Inland Bays, Narragansett Bay, Tampa Bay, and Tillamook Bay. Each of these organizations benefited from funding through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s National Estuary Program (NEP), designed to support planning and pollution mitigation in estuary ecosystems. The contrast in outcomes among these groups was striking—some dissolved after failing to bridge the planning-implementation gap, others made incremental progress, while a select few proved resilient and sustainable over time.
One of the key insights of this analysis centers on funding flexibility and diversification. NEP grants, while crucial, are limited in scope and often earmarked for specific project categories. Many watershed initiatives require a broader range of activities that fall outside these funding parameters. Ambrose emphasizes that organizations which actively sought additional financial resources demonstrated a greater capacity to implement their plans comprehensively. This financial agility also fostered stronger stakeholder engagement, preserving the trust and goodwill necessary to sustain collaborative momentum.
Beyond fiscal considerations, the introduction of pilot projects during the planning phase emerged as a significant factor in success. These smaller, preliminary efforts serve multiple crucial functions. They provide a real-world testing ground to identify unexpected obstacles or opportunities, enabling organizations to recalibrate strategies before committing to large-scale rollouts. Moreover, pilot projects help build internal and external confidence by demonstrating tangible progress and actionable results, fostering sustained commitment among participants.
An underexplored dimension revealed by this study is the organizational and governance transformation required as collaborations shift focus. Planning and implementation are intrinsically different endeavors; they have distinct goals, require divergent skill sets, and demand adjustments in leadership dynamics and operational frameworks. Unfortunately, the body of research has traditionally treated these phases in isolation. This siloed perspective has contributed to a disjointed application of best practices and inconsistent guidance for practitioners, which the study critically examines.
Ambrose critiques the tendency in the field to borrow concepts from planning to inform implementation and vice versa. Such an approach ignores the nuanced developmental dynamics that occur during the transition, often leading to confusion and mixed outcomes. Addressing this gap, the study’s conceptual framework offers both practical tools to improve administrative processes and a robust theoretical contribution that advances the governance literature on collaboration in environmental management.
The implications of adopting a mixed services transition approach extend beyond watershed management. Ambrose suggests that many collaborative initiatives in diverse domains could benefit from rethinking their progression strategies. By embedding implementation activities within the planning stage, organizations create feedback loops that enhance adaptive management and resilience. This method encourages continuous learning and flexibility, which are vital in navigating the complexities and uncertainties that typify large-scale environmental collaborations.
Further research, the study notes, is essential to refine this approach. Particularly, there is a need to investigate how specific governance structures interact with varying collaborative contexts to either facilitate or hinder the transition from planning to implementation. Such inquiries could illuminate tailored strategies that accommodate different environmental, social, and political settings, increasing the likelihood of successful outcomes across diverse scenarios.
In the practical realm, this research offers a beacon of clarity for practitioners grappling with the perennial challenge of moving from idea to action. Encouraging organizations to experiment with pilot initiatives and diversify funding portfolios early on provides tangible tactics to enhance operational effectiveness. Moreover, recognizing and planning for the organizational shifts required during this transition empowers leadership to navigate change proactively, rather than reactively.
The paper, titled “Transitioning from planning to implementation: comparing collaborative governance and developmental dynamics in 4 watersheds,” co-authored by Mark Imperial of the University of North Carolina at Wilmington, represents a significant advancement in policy sciences. Published open access in the journal Policy Sciences, it serves as an essential resource for academics and practitioners aiming to understand and improve collaborative environmental governance.
Ultimately, this study reframes the narrative around collaborative watershed initiatives, not as a linear progression from planning to implementation, but as a dynamic, overlapping process requiring intentional administrative design. By adopting the mixed services transition approach, collaborative organizations can better overcome implementation challenges, harness the power of adaptive governance, and ultimately deliver the environmental services their regions so critically need.
Subject of Research: Not applicable
Article Title: Transitioning from planning to implementation: comparing collaborative governance and developmental dynamics in 4 watersheds
News Publication Date: 26-Aug-2025
Web References:
- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11077-025-09583-8
- http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11077-025-09583-8
References: “Transitioning from planning to implementation: comparing collaborative governance and developmental dynamics in 4 watersheds,” Policy Sciences, Ambrose et al., 2025
Keywords: Collaborative Governance, Watershed Management, Environmental Policy, Implementation Science, Public Administration, Adaptive Management, Mixed Services Transition Approach
