We assess how the collaboration has been functioning. Partners, stakeholders, and donors are each interviewed separately (and confidentially). We focus on what structural or relational factors made certain things difficult, and what was working well enough to keep. This step produces a written evaluation of the collaboration process.

We bring the partners together to discuss the evaluation findings. The focus is on understanding root causes — and in particular, how the old structure shaped the outcomes you got. What often looks like a people problem turns out to be a structure problem.

At least one further session is dedicated to the most pressing issue the partnership faces — whether that is a funding transition, a conflict of roles, or something else that emerged from the interviews. Depending on the topic, this may involve external experts.

We write a detailed report with a suggested new governance framework and a prioritised roadmap. Every recommendation is linked to the reasoning behind it, so partners understand the logic rather than just following instructions.

Before the draft is presented to the group, we speak with each partner individually to hear their reactions, preferences, and concerns. This step ensures that the joint discussion that follows is informed rather than reactive, and that partners feel heard before they are asked to agree.

We present the draft to the partnership and discuss it together. What fits? What needs adjusting to work in your day-to-day context? We incorporate the feedback and deliver the final version.

We then hold follow-up conversations at one, three, and six months. At the six-month mark, we also run a second process evaluation — using the same approach as at the start — to assess how collaboration quality has changed and course-correct if necessary. This gives you a concrete picture of what the redesign has and has not improved.