F1: M., researcher EUR
Depends on the partnership, but I prefer horizontal, as-equal-as-possible structures. Classic structures with steering committees, advisory groups, and operational teams can be quite “boring” and not the essence of collaboration. The key is working with people who truly want the collaboration and developing it while doing it—actionoriented, not designed behind a desk. A facilitator often wears different
hats at different moments: meeting facilitator, negotiator, or guiding a steering
group through decisions—depending on what’s needed.
F2: F., researcher barca
We have monthly partners’ meetings, sometimes a bit lighter in the
summer, where we are very frank and honest about whether we still have the
people to do something or whether we should drop an effort. The decisions are democratic
F3: M., Digi
The group basically makes the strategic decisions, but there is always a check with the client. But it’s really more informing him than anything else. We have a weekly meeting with the client, that is why there is a lot of trust between us. Also seeing each other a lot. Frequent contact is a big part of the trust. About the PL: In practice you work together with the project leader constantly: thinking, talking about what’s best,
joining meetings, watching and thinking along—so they’re basically always involved.
F4: M., Digi-ICTU
The client’s role varies — some give me a lot of freedom and trust my lead, while others are more hands-on. In practice, strategic decisions are usually made together: I lay out my considerations, we discuss them, and the client makes the final call.
How decisions flow more broadly depends on the type of project. In advisory work, our advice is often leading. In result-driven projects, you align closely with the client on what the outcome should be. And in larger programs, responsibilities are defined per work package — so within my area, I had final say.
F5: A., PBA
Strategic decisions belong to the partners — they have to own the direction, otherwise they won’t stay in the partnership. My decision-making role is different: I bring a framework and good practice for how to partner effectively, and help partners make their own choices within that. For instance, whether to sign an MOU or keep things informal depends on the situation — but you have to make a deliberate choice either way. On capturing best practices: there’s a role for the architect to share experience and set guardrails early on, but the most meaningful good practices come from the partners themselves working through real problems together. Both matter.
F6: A., Signalen - VNG
My role stays focused on the substantive side: facilitating input, sharing information, and connecting municipalities with each other. The financial and governance side — formalizing the cooperation structure, setting up a legal framework, handling payments — sits with VNG and the steering group. I’ll chase people who haven’t paid, but calling budget holders isn’t really my place. The transition from Amsterdam as owner to Amsterdam as participant is still being worked out. A key open question is where the development will sit once it leaves Amsterdam, what role VNG will play, and how funding will work long-term — community contributions alone won’t cover it. The steering group currently has no formal mandate — it advises, but Amsterdam could technically still override it. That’s expected to change as governance is formalized.
F7: L., PBA
Keep informed, report to, translate decisions into simple summary for operational layer
F9: J., Novum
The Innovation Designer holds process ownership, while the client remains the owner of the content and the decisions. The PM acts as an intermediary layer: he qualifies the client at the front end and remains the point of contact throughout the project for escalations and steering at management level, allowing the Innovation Designer to focus on process facilitation.