Table 4 Chart showing how partnership functioning impacted the projects across sites, with positive partnership function ( +) correlating with positive project outcomes ( +) and negative partnership function (-) correlating with negative project outcomes (-)
CUP Site | Partnership Functioning | Project Impact |
|---|---|---|
Mexico City & UNAM | (-) Partnership not solidified with official documentation | (-) Increased uncertainty about ability to tackle complex problems with extensive projects in the future |
Luneburg & Leuphana | ( +) Strong collaborative history was recognized and previous allies convened | ( +) Re-energized interest in project and found place for project to be integrated into city work |
Portland & PSU | ( +) Partnership roles and responsibilities defined | ( +) Tangible project work-flows developed |
Karlsruhe & KIT | (-) Lack of stable and consistent partnership participants | (-) Difficult to devise useful project |
Tempe & ASU | ( +) Motivation to engaged increased as mutual understanding of need improved | ( +) More participation at workshops and integration into city planning |