CONSTRUCTION OF COLLABORATIVE GOVERNANCE MODEL OF INDONESIAN OVERSEAS GRADUATE STUDY SCHOLARSHIP PROGRAM

The aim of this paper is to construct collaborative governance model of the Indonesian Overseas Graduate Study Scholarship Program (IOGSSP) managed by the Directorate General of Higher Education at the Ministry of Education and Culture of the Republic of Indonesia. Using the framework of Ansell & Gash (2007), this paper aligns the strategic plan of IOGSSP with the strategic plan of Talent Management of University Lecturers (TMUL). This alignment is a precondition (critical variable) in constructing the model.

The purpose of this research is to construct collaborative governance model of IOGSSP through alignment of its strategic plan with the strategic plan of TMUL, improvement of communication as well as commitment among the program stakeholders.

LITERATURE REVIEW
Collaborative Governance. Collaboration, the noun, is working (Latin labor) together (Latin co-) across organizational boundaries in multi-sectoral relationships to achieve a common goal, while to govern, the verb, is "to direct processes to influence decisions and actions within the public, private, and civil sectors" (Eppel, 2013: 27). Lynn, Heinrich, & Hill (2001: 7) in Ansell & Gash (2007: 545) interpret governance as "the legal regimes, rules, judicial precedents, and administrative practices that limit, regulate, and enable the provision of public goods and services." Stoker (2004: 3) in Ansell & Gash (2007: 545) defines it as "the rules and ordinances that direct collective decision-making"; governance, they say, is not about an individual making decisions but rather about organizations operating a system.
Collaborative governance involves people constructively across borders to implement a public goal (Emerson, Nabatchi & Balogh, 2011). It is also defined as an arrangement whereby one or more public agencies directly engage non-state stakeholders in a collective decision-making process that is formal, consensus-oriented, and deliberative and that aims to make or implement public policy or manage public programs or assets (Ansell & Gash, 2007). Figure 1 below shows their model.  Four variables make up the model, namely (1) the starting conditions, (2) the institutional design, (3) the leadership, and (4) the collaborative process, where process variables form the core of the model. Initial conditions, institutional design, and leadership variables contribute either as critical determinants or as contextualizes (Ansell & Gash, 2007).
Lack of communication and coordination between stakeholders and between internal departments and offices can lead to wasteful duplication, unmet needs, ill-feeling, conflict, and reduced synergy. On a more positive note, dialogue between stakeholders is intended to open communication channels, facilitate shared vision, and elicit positive feedback on the evolving programs, services, and decisions (Catmur, A, 2008). In collaborative governance it is very important to pay attention to communication, for example by arranging meetings in which each person takes a turn as facilitator. Communication may be face-to-face or by electronic means like email or telephone. Some internet video communications are themselves face-to-face to a certain extent. Thus, the meeting agenda can be led by the place and type of communication process used. Agreement on purpose, shared vision, communication, accountability, the existence of user communities, individual capabilities, and clarity of governance arrangements are key factors of successful collaboration (O'Flynn, J. & Wanna, J., 2008).
All Collaborative Governance practices are built on face-to-face dialogue to identify what opportunities are mutually beneficial to the stakeholders. Face-to-face dialogue is more than just a negotiating medium and is at the heart of the stereotypical liquefaction process and other barriers to communicate and prevent any joint profit exploration (Bentrup 2001). Face-to-face dialogue is at the heart of the process of building trust, mutual respect, mutual understanding, and commitment to processes (Gilliam et  Although the terminology varies in Ansell & Gash (2007: 559), it is clear that on the level of stakeholder commitment depends the ultimate success or failure of the collaboration. Commitment mirrors genuine motivation to participate in collaborative governance. Of course, some stakeholders participate initially just to ensure that their perspectives are not overlooked, to secure the legitimacy of their position, to fulfil legal obligations, and for other subjective considerations. Burger et al. (2001) in Ansell & Gash (2007: 559) explain that true commitment comes from realisingperhaps only after a cycle or two of negotiationsthat the goodwill of bargaining for mutual benefit is the best way to achieve it.
At some point of the collaborative process, stakeholders develop a shared understanding of what they can achieve collectively. This is described as "sharing the same mission" ( The Concept of Alignment. Skinner (1974) speaks of strategic consensus, Porter (1996) and Venkatraman (1989) refer to it as fit, and Henderson & Venkatraman (1993) use alignment. Each of these phrases encompasses a concept of alignment. According to Porter (1996), strategy means making the activities of an organization fit each other. In other words, activities must cooperate and support and strengthen each other. Boyer & McDermott (1999; in Salimian, H., et. al., 2012) state that strategic alignment means that individuals at various organizational levels agree on the issues of cost, quality, delivery and flexibility, all of which are important for success.
Other writers agree (Hayes & Wheelwright, 1984;Hill, 1988;Voss, 2005). According to Venkatraman (1989), six types of alignment are possible in two dimensions: (1) relating alignment to a specific criterion, and (2) the degree of accuracy in forming alignment relationships. The model assumes that the greater the number of equation variables, the lower the degree of accuracy in alignment relations will be. In the viewpoint of alignment which considers it as a moderator, the effect of an independent variable (such as strategy) on a dependent variable (such as performance) depends on another variable (such as environment) which is known as the moderator. In the alignment approach as mediation, a variable such as organizational structure affects the relationship between a primary variable (such as strategy) and a consequent variable (such as performance). The alignment approach expresses coordination between two variables.
What distinguishes this approach from previous approaches is that in this approach, a criterion variable such as performance is not considered. Nevertheless, even in this approach the effect of coordination of two variables on one or more criterion variables selected by the researcher is measured. A famous example of this approach is Chandler's study on the relationship between structure and strategy. Two dimensions appearalignment of the strategy of functional units and business strategy (vertical alignment), and alignment of functions (horizontal alignment). Functional strategies shape the business-level strategy; in the words of Beckman & Rosenfield (2008), decisions made at functional units become the business strategy. A window of alignment can be defined whose panes comprise the functional strategies and whose frame is the business strategy. From this we conclude that functional strategies provide necessary elements for gaining competitive advantage. However, each unit pursues its own strategy, and each unit's strategy must fit with the strategies of other units as well as with the business-level strategy. Fitness of small windows with one another is defined as horizontal alignment and fitness of small windows with the window frame is defined as vertical alignment. Alignment enhances performance and misalignment degrades performance (Salimian, H., et. al., 2012).

METHODS OF RESEARCH
We use a Soft Systems Methodology (SSM), as is appropriate for a study looking at the world as a complex, problematic, mysterious theatre, characterized by opposing viewpoints and clashes of Weltanschauung (world view) (Checkland & Poulter, 2006;Checkland, 1981). SSM facilitates experience-based knowledge (Checkland and Scholes, 1990), moving between reality (or perceived reality) and subjective actuality, that is, feelings about the real world (Uchiyama, 1999). In our case, reality is the Indonesian overseas graduate study scholarship program (IOGSSP).
A researcher declares their theoretical framework (F) and method (M) used to formulate and guide their study (Checkland, 1991). A reflection of the F, M, A, or the theme of the research should be made to the invention of the results achieved. In the end, the design cycle and problem-solving research interestas in this study, will give birth to new knowledge, modifying the questions that have been there, or get a new question be produced at A or F.
We gather data in accordance with the seven-stage principle of SSM. Results at an early stage are realized in the form of a Rich Picture (Checkland & Scholes, 1990).
The seven stages appear in Figure 2 above. Those are (1) finding an unstructured problem, (2) determining the structure of the problem, (3) making root definitions of relevant systems, (4) developing conceptual models, (5) comparing conceptual models with structured problem situations, that is, comparing stage 2 and stage 4, (6) considering feasible changes acceptable to stakeholders, and (7) taking action to improve the situation.  . Their approach is: 1) an informal talk, 2) reading documents, 3) chairing meetings, 4) conducting interviews, and 5) hosting informal "tea parties" or similar social events, while simultaneously taking note of all things related to roles (actual and assumed), norms (societal and individual), and values (again, both societal and personal). Primary data is collected at deep interviews, through focus group discussions, and by observation. Secondary data comes from the literature and related documents. Deep interviewees include: 1) lecturers or working student candidates, program participants (working students), and program alumni (graduates), and 2) Indonesian overseas graduate study scholarship program managers at native (home) universities, and 3) policy makers in native universities (for example related Vice Rectors), and 4) representatives of Ditjen Dikti, the top-level of IOGSSP management, and 5) relevant parties at the destination (host) universities abroad (supervisors and international student officers).

RESULTS OF STUDY
As we show in detail below, in this research, we act along with the promoter and copromoter (academic advisors) in order to align the strategic plan of IOGSSP with the strategic plan of TMUL.
Stage One -The Problem Situation Unstructured. Three problems present themselves: 1) misalignment of the strategic plan of IOGSSP with the strategic plan of TMUL (planning, recruitment and career development of lecturers), 2) miscommunication among stakeholders (face-to-face dialogue, and trust building being faulty or entirely absent), and 3) isolation of stakeholders (no commitment to process, no shared understandings, and no dialogue).
Stage Two -The Problem Situation Expressed. The second stage of the SSM uses three analyses. Analysis one is of intervention (clients, practitioners and problem owners of the issues addressed), Analysis Two is of social roles, norms, and values, and Analysis Three is wholly political. The Rich Picture of collaborative governance of IOGSSP makes up Figure 3 below. Stage Three -The Development of a Root Definition from the Rich Picture. The Root Definition (RD) to construct the conceptual model of IOGSSP is "The system owned and operated by researchers and promoters and co-promoters (academic advisors) to explore the alignment of the strategic plan of IOGSSP with strategic plan of TMUL, stakeholder communication, and stakeholder commitment (P) using Soft Systems Methodology approach (Q) in order to construct models of overseas governance study scholarship program (R)." To construct a conceptual model of IOGSSP we used CATWOE Analysis (Checkland, 1990: 70) as shown in Table 2 following: Stage Four -Conceptual Models. In accordance with the system which has been named in the RD, a Conceptual Model of IOGSSP was created. Conceptual Model Construction refers to CATWOE and is analyzed according to the 3E criteria (Efficacy, Efficiency, and Effectiveness) related to three important elements: input, transformations, and output to assess the reliability of the conceptual model. The model includes processes by which the actors can work together to achieve the objectives, that is, that IOGSSP should produce overseas universities doctoral programs on time as well as earn respect at an international level.

Stage 5 -Comparison of the Conceptual Model with Real World (Perceived Reality).
We compare conceptual models with the real world by creating Table 3 below, consisting of conceptual model activity, its presence in reality, and comments. The results of this SSM fifth stage analysis form the basis for determining changes in the collaborative governance model (Ansell & Gash 2007).
Stage Six -Systemically Desirable and Culturally Feasible Changes. The results from stage five lead naturally into discussions of the future. There are various ways to proceed at this stage. One way, for example, is to have a structured discussion with everyone involved, leading to agreement on changes which are both systemically feasible and culturally acceptable, possibly even desirable.
Already we obtain a clear picture through group discussions, interviews, direct observations, and notes taken at each of the campuses and stakeholders visiteda picture of ineffective and inefficient communication, lack of commitment, misalignment, and ill feeling. All agree that these challenges require resolution: the Directorate General of Higher Education, scholarship recipients, home universities, destination universities, student supervisors, and the students themselves. The absence of a common understanding of work.
The need for improvement of information technology governance system programs (websites, forum mailing lists, and e-mail); The need for improvement of online communication (information technologybased communication); The need for improved archive management and documentation; The need for clarity in face-to-face dialogue; The need for mutually agreed goals.

4.b.
Establish the level of mutual trust in the governance of the program Lack of mutual understanding of working together The need to improve shared understanding of work.

4.c Assess the commitment factor in program implementation
Lack of transparency in the process of program delivery; Lack of faith in mutual benefits; Failure to comply with collective agreements; Lack of respect for the interests of each stakeholder; Lack of good faith in collective decisionmaking ; Lack of targeted responsibility (accountability) for the process.
The need for increased transparency in the process of program delivery; The need for faith in mutual benefits; The need to improve compliance with collective agreements; The need to increase respect for the interests of each stakeholder; The need for good faith in collective action; The need for accountability for the process.

4.d.
Assess mutual understanding factors in program implementation  Even before someone applies to IOGSPP, we find that only a few universities in Indonesia have a structured TMUL plan, and none necessarily observe the IOGSSP guidelines offered by the DGHE. So, in some cases the students' existing competencies and skills are not formally recognised, and their future study depends entirely upon their own judgement. Accordingly, we posit the alignment of IOGSSP and TMUL as a general variable of the model of collaborative governance.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Using frameworks from Ansell & Gash (2007) to construct our model of collaborative governance for IOGSSP reveals that their factors and indicators are not entirely sufficient. We propose an additional critical variable, that is, alignment of the strategic plan of IOGSSP with the strategic plan of TMUL. This alignment is a precondition for successful governance.
The standard process consists of:  Communication (face to face dialogue, websites, e-mail, and forum mailing lists; management of document archives, visits and clarification meetings);  Commitment (openness, shared ownership, interdependence, shared responsibility, trust, shared understanding, mission clarity, and equality of issues);  The program's strategic alignment factors including alignment of input indicators, processes, outputs;  Intermediate outcomes including collaborative facilitators, follow-up on monitoring and evaluation results, and joint learning outcomes. As we explain above, it is necessary to modify the Ansell & Gash collaborative model by adding a critical variable, that is, the alignment of IOGSSP with TMUL. Therefore we recommend a further in-depth study of the effectiveness of any collaborative governance model of IOGSSP.
Practically, the collaborative governance model of IOGSSP can be used to assess the synergy of actors and institutions in the implementation of public policy in Indonesia. The results of the study can contribute and references to the Directorate General of Higher Education, scholarship Home University, scholarship Host University and can be used as a reference for reviewing collaborative governance on programs and other organizational activities.