Nik Miller 0:03

We've had lots of productive conversations over the recent months, maybe even longer than that, about the way in which organisations are coming together to develop collaborative propositions for donors. I guess that's a long history in the sort of university hospital sector, but we're seeing these to be more prevalent. Just from your perspective, what are the kind of ingredients for success?

Rodolphe Gouin 0:25

Yeah, I think institutions are coming together. It's a very important topic, actually, because we can see many organisations trying to join together to achieve more, either in front of raising more money or having a bigger impact in the things that they can deliver. So I think that probably the one of the conditions to success is transparency about the objectives of the partnership. But there are two different things here. The two partners should be very clear about what they want to achieve through the partnership, but they also want need to be clear about their own objectives, joining the partnership. It can be different. You can have one organisation wanting to raise their profile, visibility, and the second one, the partner, trying to raise more money, and they are building a partnership for that. But it's not exactly the same thing. But transparency and clarity here is key because when you start fundraising partnerships, for example, you don't know what the new challenges will come, the difficulties. And if you don't have clarity about the objectives at the very beginning, you will not adapt. So I think it's key to be totally transparent on that. That's the first thing. Probably the second condition, I think, is to be clear on your values. I could share an example of that. When I was CEO of a foundation in the healthcare sector, we joined with another foundation to raise money together. But the way we manage the relationship with the donors, and especially with the biggest ones, were totally different. And the way the other organisation was treating their donors was not acceptable for us. And I hoped I had been aware of that before the partnership because when things have sorted, then you cannot just stop that. So values and the way you operate, I think, is absolutely key. But maybe you have other examples in the higher education sector in the UK.

Nik Miller 2:40

Yeah, I certainly think to build on your point about being sort of transparent and maybe having complementary matters to bring to the partnership. I'm reminded as you were talking about the partnership between Imperial College and the University of Cumbria and the medical proposition there that's been developed by the Pears Foundation. That for me feels like a wonderful example of where neither institution alone could achieve what's being achieved there. So it feels like a very complementary partnership, much as we see, for example, with King's College in Cranfield. Very complementary areas of expertise that make sense. It doesn't feel like a merger or an acquisition, it's a coming together of complementary assets. I also think from a donor perspective, often you know high-net worth donors we talk to are naturally very cause-driven. And I do speak to some philanthropists who are rather fatigued of the sort of roadshow of propositions that they might want to fund. And an example comes to mind, which is the Child of the North, which is eight universities in the north of England coming together to really look in detail at how you combat child poverty in the north. Now, for a philanthropist whose heart beats more quickly about that cause, the proposition coming from that collective of institutions has to be more powerful than any institution can achieve alone. And I guess there's a bit of game theory in here, isn't there, about those individual institutions? Because, you know, is there more gained or lost in that collaboration for each institution? And that speaks to your point about being transparent and clear about what each institution wants from inception, not six, twelve months down the road.

Rodolphe Gouin 4:24

Yeah, that there's a word I like, which is optimisation. It's it's not a word I like in general, but for partnerships, before entering, before building a new partnership, thinking about will these partnerships really help me move forward and and reach my objectives? So will it optimise my functioning? I think it's it's a very interesting question because when you are in a partnership, you will collaborate. And collaboration means compromise, which means, okay, there is something you will lose, or you will not earn as much as you can as you think you will, or maybe as much as you would if you were on your own. So you have to be very clear about what you are, what you agree to compromise on, and how it optimises your fundraising if it's about raising money. So I think that's if you have a very clear idea of that, maybe sometimes you could say, well, actually, this partnership will not help me at all. So, they are nice people, we share the cause, but actually we don't have a lot to do together because we could do much better on our own rather than together. So, a partnership is not always a good idea. And here again you have to be very clear about the return on investment, but most of that more that the optimisation of your process and your functioning, and then the values, as I said. So the question is how can we help our clients decide on that and move forward on that? Do you have examples of of the kind of support we can provide to our clients to think about that clearly?

Nik Miller 6:13

Yeah, I think to pick up on a couple of your points, I think the more clients early on in these partnerships can be asking that fundamental question which you're framing, which is what can we do together that would not be possible alone? I think that question has to be answered with precision early on. And I see, of course, some of this pressure coming from donors themselves who are saying to institutions, could you collaborate with this other institution I'm talking with on a proposition in this space? So, I think sometimes actually the catalyst for these partnerships is the donor or the donor's family saying, you know, we'd like to see a shared proposition in this space. But I think to pick up on a couple of your points, transparency from inception, regular review points as well, particularly if there are changes in staffing, and really clear guardrails about what an institution might continue to do solo that doesn't require partnership working, and what definitely does require clear collaboration.

Rodolphe Gouin 7:15

Yeah, and I'm just thinking about a few very big I have had to face as a leader. Will you share your database, for example, with the other part, I mean with your partner in terms of fundraising? Will you have shared lists of prospects? Who will be in contact with these donors? And and after success, we hope, of the partnership, who will keep the donor in their own database? I mean, all these questions are very operational, very technical, but actually they are key. So we have to discuss that and clients, our clients have to discuss that before entering the partnership. We cannot discuss everything, but I think that through our experience and expertise working with so many clients, there are many points like that that it can be very challenging. We could highlight saying, just have these conversations, please, because then it could be a nightmare if you don't talk about that.

Nik Miller 8:17

I find myself talking to lots of clients about the fact that clarity is your friend. And I think often going into these partnerships, the sort of instinct is to feel that if we introduce lots of detailed policies and processes that give us that clarity, the implication is that there is not trust. And I don't think that's right. I think the the precision and the clarity of process and where responsibility sits, who is burdening the risk, who is holding the risk in particular areas. I think the more clear you can be about that, the more liberating it is, and the more then a partnership can flourish. And I think that can feel often in the early stages quite counterintuitive.

Rodolphe Gouin 8:57

Yeah, I totally agree with that. And the difficulty in here is that many times I heard the leaders, you know, the SLT, the trustees, very committed into this new partnership or very happy to launch that, but they had great expectations. And they didn't want to ask all these questions because they said, no, no, let's let's start first. And we will decide on that, we will find solutions. And I actually I think it's exactly the opposite that we should do. We should ask all the difficult questions at the very beginning. Even if it looks like not bringing the joy, well, it's not bringing the joy now, but it will ensure that the partnership will bring the joy later rather than the opposite.

Nik Miller 9:41

Perhaps the mantra there is agree it all before you announce anything.

Rodolphe Gouin 9:46

Absolutely.

Nik Miller 9:46

Yeah. I actually I know your point's not a flippant one. You know, I do think some leadership styles lean towards, well, let's have a vision for this working and announce it, and we'll and the rest will follow. You know, we just need some momentum. I think you're you're warning against the risks of that approach very sensibly. Yeah. Sadly.

Rodolphe Gouin 10:07

Yeah. Great. Thank you, Nik.

Nik Miller 10:09

Okay, pleasure.