Barriers and enablers to effective collaboration and coordination mechanisms among humanitarian organisations delivering health and nutrition programmes in Somalia: an exploratory qualitative study

Abstract

Background

The effectiveness of humanitarian health and nutrition programmes in Somalia is critically dependent on seamless collaboration and coordination among a diverse array of actors. While existing literature acknowledges broad challenges to coordination such as insecurity, resource competition and fragmentation, a significant gap remains in understanding how these barriers and their corresponding enablers actively manifest in the daily operations and decision-making processes of frontline practitioners.

Objectives

This study aims to provide a systematic, in-depth exploration of the barriers and enablers influencing collaboration and coordination mechanisms from the perspective of those directly involved in the response.

Design

A qualitative study was conducted using semi-structured, in-depth interviews. Data were analysed using a deductive thematic approach guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

Setting

The study was conducted across the entire territory of Somalia, encompassing its five member states, the capital city Mogadishu, and the self-declared independent state of Somaliland.

Participants

A total of 26 participants, including executive directors, health and nutrition programme managers, coordinators from international and national non-governmental organisations (NGOs), government officials and community members, were interviewed.

Results

Key barriers included poor adaptability and high complexity related to collaborative initiatives (intervention characteristics); armed conflicts, climatic shocks, deeply ingrained sociocultural practices and restrictive government policies (outer setting); inadequate information technology infrastructure and hierarchical communication (inner setting); high staff turnover (individual characteristics). Key enablers included strong inter-agency partnerships (outer setting); supportive organisational culture (inner setting); competent and motivated staff (individual characteristics); and robust planning, engaging and evaluation processes (process).

Conclusion

The study highlights the complex contextual factors that impact the effectiveness of collaboration and coordination mechanisms among humanitarianorganisations operating in Somalia. Policymakers should unify governance, agencies prioritise localisation and donors allocate quotas to local NGOs to enhance aid delivery.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THIS STUDY.

• Employed a robust qualitative design with semi-structured interviews, ensuring in-depth insights from diverse stakeholders.

• Used the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research to systematically identify barriers and enablers, enhancing analytical rigour.

• The trustworthiness of the findings was enhanced through methodological rigour, including analyst triangulation, member checking and researcher reflexivity, which helped mitigate potential biases.

• Findings may be specific to Somalia, potentially limiting transferability to other contexts.

• Reliance on self-reported interviews may introduce biases, such as social desirability, influencing participant responses.

Background

Somalia has faced decades of protracted conflict, political instability and recurrent environmental crises, including droughts and floods, which have severely undermined its health and nutrition landscape.^{1 2} Somalia has one of the highest under-5 mortality rates globally, with malnutrition contributing to nearly half of these deaths.3,5 The country’s fragile infrastructure, coupled with ongoing security threats, has created a complex humanitarian crisis that demands robust and coordinated interventions.^{6 7} Humanitarian organisations, including international non-governmental organisations (INGOs), local NGOs and United Nations (UN) agencies, play a critical role in delivering life-saving health and nutrition programmes. However, the effectiveness of these interventions hinges on the ability of these organisations to collaborate and coordinate their efforts seamlessly.8,10 The humanitarian context in Somalia is characterised by multiple overlapping crises, including conflict, displacement and climate-related disasters. Over 3.8 million people are internally displaced, and more than 6 million require humanitarian assistance annually, according to the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs.^{11 12} Health and nutrition programmes are critical components of the humanitarian response, addressing acute needs such as treatment for severe acute malnutrition, maternal and child health services and disease outbreak control. These programmes are delivered by a diverse array of actors, including the Somali government, UN agencies like UNICEF and WHO, INGOs such as Save the Children and Médecins Sans Frontières, and local organisations with deep community ties. Despite their shared goals, these organisations often operate in a fragmented manner, with varying mandates, funding streams and operational approaches.¹³ Coordination mechanisms, such as the Somalia Health Cluster and Nutrition Cluster, have been established to streamline efforts, but challenges persist in achieving cohesive and efficient collaboration.^{14 15}

Barriers to effective collaboration in Somalia include logistical constraints, such as limited access to remote areas due to insecurity and poor infrastructure, which hinder joint planning and service delivery.¹⁶ Resource competition, particularly for donor funding, often leads to duplication of efforts or gaps in coverage, as organisations prioritise their own agendas over collective goals.¹⁷ Differences in organisational cultures, priorities and accountability structures further complicate partnerships, especially between international and local actors. For instance, local NGOs may have better contextual knowledge but lack the funding and technical capacity of their international counterparts, creating power imbalances that undermine trust and cooperation.¹⁸ Additionally, the volatile security environment and bureaucratic hurdles, such as government regulations and visa restrictions for humanitarian workers, pose significant obstacles to coordinated action.¹⁹

Conversely, enablers of effective collaboration include established coordination platforms like the Health and Nutrition Clusters, which facilitate information sharing, joint needs assessments and resource allocation.⁹ Strong leadership within these clusters can foster trust and alignment among organisations. Partnerships that prioritise capacity building for local organisations have shown promise in creating sustainable, community-driven solutions. Furthermore, advancements in technology, such as mobile data collection and real-time monitoring systems, have improved data sharing and decision-making, enabling more responsive and coordinated interventions.²⁰

While these barriers and enablers are acknowledged, there is a lack of in-depth analysis exploring how they actively manifest in the daily interactions and decision-making processes of frontline practitioners. This qualitative study, guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR), aims to systematically engage stakeholder perspectives on the barriers and enablers to effective collaboration and coordination among humanitarian organisations delivering health and nutrition programmes in Somalia.

Methods

Study design and setting

A qualitative research design was employed using semi-structured interviews to gain in-depth insights into the experiences, perceptions and perspectives of key stakeholders on the factors (ie, barriers and facilitators) involved in effective coordination and collaboration mechanisms among humanitarian agencies in Somalia. The study was conducted across the entire territory of Somalia, encompassing its five member states (Puntland, Jubaland, South West, Galmudug and Hirshabelle), the capital city Mogadishu, and the self-declared independent state of Somaliland. These regions represent the primary areas of humanitarian interventions.

Participant selection and sampling

Purposive sampling technique was used to ensure representation from various stakeholders involved in collaboration and coordination efforts. Participants were selected based on their involvement and knowledge of coordination mechanisms, agency operations and contextual understanding. Participants included executive directors, programme managers, coordinators from international and national NGOs, government officials (eg, Regional/District Medical Officers) and community leaders. Potential participants were approached via professional email, LinkedIn or WhatsApp, based on contacts from existing professional networks. They received an information sheet detailing the study’s aims. Out of 35 individuals contacted, 26 agreed to participate, 5 did not respond and 4 declined due to time constraints.

Researcher characteristics and reflexivity

The research team consisted of three members: AMI, SAH and MOM, each contributing distinct expertise to ensure rigorous data collection and analysis. AMI, a qualified public health researcher and faculty member with over 8 years of experience in qualitative methods and humanitarian health research led the data collection. AMI’s prior collaboration with local NGOs and familiarity with Somalia’s humanitarian sector posed potential bias, which was addressed through a reflexive journal. This journal documented assumptions, preconceptions and potential influences on interactions, particularly with government officials, to maintain neutrality. Reflexivity involved weekly reflections on how AMI’s positionality as a researcher might shape stakeholder responses, especially on sensitive topics like inner and outer setting dynamics. SAH, a research specialist, contributed to coding and analysis, bringing an external perspective to minimise bias from local context familiarity. MOM, a senior researcher with expertise in CFIR and humanitarian coordination, provided oversight and facilitated iterative discussions to refine themes. The team’s diverse backgrounds ensured balanced perspectives, with regular meetings to discuss potential biases and maintain objectivity. The sensitivity of engaging diverse stakeholders (government, NGOs, communities) was mitigated by emphasising confidentiality, using secure virtual platforms and framing the study as academic to build trust.

The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research as a basis for identifying barriers and enablers

The CFIR consists of 39 constructs that have been associated with effective implementation, which was originally developed in 2009, adopted from 19 frameworks and theories including Roger Everest’s Theory of Diffusion²¹ and Greenhalgh and colleagues’ compilation,²² and was updated in 2022. CFIR is divided into five domains: characteristics of the intervention, outer setting, inner setting, characteristic of the individuals involved and the process of implementation.^{23 24} This framework was selected due to its comprehensive structure for identifying factors influencing implementation in complex settings. It is particularly suited for humanitarian contexts like Somalia, where multifaceted barriers (eg, security, politics) interact with enablers (eg, networks), allowing systematic exploration of collaboration dynamics. A total of 17 out of 39 constructs were considered fit for the study and a semi-structured interview guide was developed. The interview guide was adopted for the different stakeholders to adjust for relevant roles. The interview guide included questions about the organisation and practices relating to collaboration and coordination, for instance, coordination meetings, collaboration challenges, organisational and individual characteristics, contextual factors and communication channels.

Data collection

26 semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted from 1 July to 20 August 2023, with a diverse range of stakeholders, including representatives from humanitarian agencies, government bodies, local communities and other relevant actors. Potential participants were identified and approached through professional networks on LinkedIn and via direct email contact. Following an invitation and agreement to participate, all interviews were conducted virtually using platforms including Zoom and WhatsApp call, based on participant preference and security considerations. To ensure privacy and confidentiality, participants were asked to choose a quiet, private space for the interview. At the start of each session, the researcher confirmed with the participant that they were alone and could speak freely, and no third parties were observed or noted to be present during any of the interviews. No repeat interviews were carried out and each interview lasted 45–60 min. With participant consent, interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Interviews continued until data saturation was reached, where no new themes emerged from additional interviews. The interview guide used in this study is provided as online supplemental file 1.

Data analysis

Thematic analysis was conducted using a deductive approach, following Wæraas,²⁵ with CFIR as the coding framework. Audio recordings were transcribed verbatim by a trained research assistant, checked for accuracy by AMI and anonymised by removing identifiable information (eg, names, specific organisations) before data entry. Transcripts were stored on a password-protected server accessible only to the research team, ensuring secure data management. Data were entered into Excel for coding, with each transcript assigned a unique identifier to maintain anonymity. AMI and SAH independently coded transcripts, identifying patterns within CFIR domains. To enhance trustworthiness and credibility, analyst triangulation was employed, involving iterative discussions with MOM to resolve discrepancies and refine themes. Member checking was conducted by sharing preliminary findings with five participants to verify accuracy, and a coding audit trail was maintained to document decisions. These techniques ensured robust analysis, addressing potential biases from researcher familiarity with the context. Themes were mapped to barriers and enablers across intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, individual characteristics and process. The Consolidated criteria for Reporting Qualitative research guided reporting of the study.²⁶

Ethics approval

This study adhered to the ethical principles outlined in the Helsinki declaration. Ethical approval was obtained from the Somalia National Institute of Health Institutional Review Board (NIH/IRB/12/DEC/2022). Participants provided written informed consent, and their privacy and confidentiality were ensured through anonymisation of data.

Results

Description of the respondents

Demographic characteristics of the respondents are shown in (table 1).

Table 1. Demographic characteristics of the respondents.

Variables	Frequency (%)
Stakeholders
Executive Director (ED)/Former ED	5
Programme Director/Manager	6
Programme Coordinator	4
Health and Nutrition Manager	4
Regional Medical Officer	3
District Medical Officer	2
Community leader	2
Age group
26–30	7
31–35	11
36–45	7
>46	1
Sex
Male	15
Female	11
Education level
Secondary degree	1
Bachelor’s degree	7
Master’s degree	16
PhD degree	2

Intervention characteristics

Adaptability and complexity

The stakeholders perceived adaptability and complexity together function as intertwined barriers, as organisations face difficulties in refining coordination mechanisms amid volatile timelines, resource constraints, resistance to change and multifaceted project scopes that introduce uncertainty and risk. Stakeholders explained that these factors compound each other, limited adaptability due to bureaucratic delays heightens the perceived complexity of implementations, resulting in confusion, duplicated efforts and reduced collaborative synergy in a context where crises demand rapid, simplified responses.

Adapting with the timeline and aligning with the scope usually becomes challenging due to imbalance between the needs and the response capacity, and sometimes you have less time to implement the project, so it may be 18 months project, but 6 months might have been taken because you were in the contract and approval stages. (Executive Director #14)

This shows how bureaucratic hurdles delay adjustments and create inefficiencies in resource-scarce settings, shifting focus from joint goals to managing disruptions. In a context of rapid-onset crises with limited resources, the inability to quickly re-allocate resources or adjust project scope leads directly to duplication of efforts and missed opportunities. The perceived complexity of collaboration increases because the stakes of failure are high, and the environment is unforgiving of slow, inflexible systems. The implication is that coordination mechanisms lacking built-in adaptability are inherently flawed for the Somali operating environment.

Outer setting

Critical incidents

Stakeholders expressed critical incidents, unanticipated events and security conditions as major barriers to ongoing collaboration and coordination. Unexpected occurrences like explosions, armed conflicts and natural disasters can disrupt collaboration platforms and joint activities.

Armed conflicts particularly related to clan rivalries and/or explosions can, on most occasions, disrupt coordination and collaboration mechanisms. (Health and Nutrition Manager, #2)

This reveals how clan-based rivalries and explosions hinder by diverting resources and weaken vulnerable infrastructures, reducing commitment to shared goals. When agencies are constantly reacting to emergencies, long-term collaborative planning becomes a luxury. The mechanism of disruption is psychological and logistical: partners become risk-averse, hesitant to make commitments that may be impossible to keep, leading to a coordination culture that is reactive rather than proactive.

Local attitudes: sociocultural values and beliefs

Stakeholders acknowledged local attitudes (sociocultural values and beliefs) as both barriers and enablers, where alignment with community norms enhances authenticity, credibility, acceptability and support, while misalignment breeds resistance, mistrust and denial, particularly in sensitive programmes like gender-based violence (GBV) and sexual violence. For instance:

When a partner implements a program that aligns with the cultural practices and beliefs of the community, it is likely to be welcomed with greater acceptability, and the program will receive strong support from the community. However, if the program does not align with the community’s cultural practices and beliefs, it may lead to resistance and mistrust between the community and the partner. (Community Manager, #8)

You have to be cautiously sensitive in how you address or deliver things because there’s a lot of mistrust, if you talk about GBV and Sexual rape, it exists but community don’t want to talk about it, they deny or hide it rather than addressing it, so it’s a protection issue. (Programme Director, # 11)

This is not merely about ‘cultural sensitivity’. It is about the fundamental acceptability of an intervention. Programmes that fail to navigate cultural perspectives and norms risk being rejected by the community, making coordination with other agencies moot because the intervention itself is unsustainable. The implication is that effective coordination requires deep community engagement as a prerequisite, not an add-on.

Local conditions: environmental, political conditions

Environmental and political conditions

Stakeholders highlighted that environmental conditions profoundly influence coordination and collaboration mechanisms among humanitarian agencies. Climatic conditions, for instance, droughts and floods create logistical complexities and unpredictable needs shift for collaborative interventions.

it’s unpredictable, you have a project for the community and then a flood happens and then the needs increase, you may not have a quick way to respond, the same thing with draught, you invest in something, for instance, you build a school or MCH in an area, people will move if draught occurs in that area. (Project Manager, #12)

They similarly acknowledged that political instabilities in the country challenged the collaboration and coordination initiatives through imposing security risks, access restrictions, limited government support, authority ambiguity and compliance with draconian laws.

In politically unstable or conflict-affected areas, collaboration may face challenges due to security risks, access restrictions, and limited government support. We consistently navigate complex political landscapes to ensure the safety of our personnel and optimize coordination efforts. (Executive Director, #18)

In such politically unstable conditions, it becomes difficult to determine whom to talk to and understand who holds the responsibility. In some cases, we are even forced to comply with draconian and unethical laws, which significantly affects the collaboration and coordination mechanisms. (Executive Director, #14)

These barriers function through logistical and regulatory disruptions, as climatic shocks like floods shift resources and priorities, while Somalia’s federal-state fragmentation imposes multiple registration requirements, delaying coordination. The reason this is significant is Somalia’s decentralised governance, unlike unitary states where unified regulations streamline efforts. The implication is that harmonised federal-state policies are needed to reduce bureaucratic delays, enabling timely coordination and ensuring aid reaches affected communities.

Partnerships and connections

Stakeholders expressed partnerships and connections as vital for shaping collaboration and coordination efforts.

Partnering with local, regional and national authorities aligns interventions and integrates efforts. Partnering with the relevant government, state authorities or community gatekeepers in certain areas enhances the project’s progress. They possess a deeper understanding of the context, easily can recognize the beneficiarie’s needs, and effectively prevent duplication and fragmentation of activities in any setting. (Regional Medical Officer, #5)

Inter-agency partnerships with other humanitarian actors, including international organisations and non-governmental entities, were recognised as essential enablers to pool resources and expertise.

Collaboration efforts between, let’s say, an international agency and a local agency can lead to the optimization of resources, exchange of expertise, and effective outreach to the actual beneficiaries. Similarly, partnerships between two local national agencies may alleviate financial constraints during this era of limited funding resources. (Programme Director, #12)

Some stakeholders are concerned about one-sided partnerships, especially with dominant international agencies in decision-making.

Five years ago, I recall partnering with an international agency on a cash transfer project. At the time, we encountered challenges in paying the recruited staff for that project. We had submitted a proposal budget that included overhead costs, which the international agency refused to cover. Consequently, we had to co-finance and pay the staff ourselves. Unfortunately, even then, they did not recognize us as a co-financing partner. (Programme Director, #17)

This power dynamic explains why localisation efforts often stall. If local NGOs are treated as subcontractors rather than genuine partners, the partnership becomes a barrier to trust and effective coordination, fostering resentment instead of synergy. The finding implies that the structure of partnerships, specifically financial equity and recognition, is a more significant factor than their mere existence.

External policies and regulations

Stakeholders expressed that adhering to external policies, for instance, donor requirements and government regulations, can sometimes create challenges for collaboration. Funding guidelines and reporting requirements set by donor organisations may differ among agencies, affecting the alignment of efforts and the pooling of resources.

Meeting deadlines has been a persistent challenge, and fulfilling the requirements of donors to secure funding often leaves you occupied. Some of these requirements’s may even appear unrelated to the core activities. (Programme Manager, #12)

Stakeholders additionally noted that variations in regulatory requirements across different states in the country can create disparities in how humanitarian agencies cooperate. Navigating diverse legal frameworks may be time-consuming and resource-intensive, potentially affecting the efficiency of collaborative interventions.

For example, when you are registered at the federal level, you may also be required to register separately at the state level, resulting in an additional payment and wasting valuable time. This can have adverse effects on timely coordination and collaboration. (Executive Director, #20)

These external pressures force organisations to focus inward on compliance rather than outward on collaboration. The mechanism at play is the diversion of scarce time and energy from collaborative work to bureaucratic compliance.

Financing

Stakeholders expressed that stressed financial resources from donors have resulted in limited funds, leading to heightened competition among partners, particularly among local NGOs and in some cases INGOs. This competition for limited funding has affected collaborative interventions among humanitarian agencies and created challenges in coordinating joint efforts.

The challenge of securing sustained funds is compounded by partners competing, which sometimes overshadows collaborative approaches. This competition can lead to a focus on individual projects rather than joint initiatives. (Programme Manager, #22)

The resource scarcity resulted from limited funding intensifies competition, shifting focus from joint to individual initiatives, which disrupts coordination as the acute humanitarian needs demand unified responses.

Inner setting

Structural characteristics

Stakeholders highlighted several challenges related to the structural characteristics that significantly impact coordination and collaboration among humanitarian agencies.

Physical infrastructure

One major barrier related to physical infrastructure highlighted by stakeholders is the location of meeting venues.

Meetings are often held in secluded areas, such as remote hotels or military outposts, making it difficult for all partners to attend. This is coupled with the inconvenience of travel and limited accessibility to meeting venues which hampers the full engagement of stakeholders. (Health and Nutrition Manager, #3)

Information technology infrastructure

It was also noted that internet connectivity is not uniformly accessible to all areas. Remote or conflict-affected areas mainly struggle, impacting the participation in virtual collaborations.

In hard-to-reach and conflict-affected areas, internet access is not always available. Even in major cities internet can be blocked for hours or a day due to political and security reasons, often without prior warning or explanations. (Programme Coordinator, #15)

Stakeholders positively acknowledged the adoption of information technology (IT) infrastructure for smoother operations and decision-making. For example, the use of Global Information System (GIS) system for disaster mapping, and registering returned refugees.

The use of technology, especially for monitoring and feedback mechanisms, has enabled quicker and more reliable information gathering. However, the challenge of sustainability remains a constant concern. (Programme Coordinator, #16)

Work infrastructure

Regarding work infrastructures, stakeholders expressed concerns about undefined clear roles and responsibilities, particularly among government bodies involved in collaborative activities.

Lack of clarity in roles can lead to confusion, duplication of efforts, and decision-making bottlenecks, impeding the efficiency of collaboration. (Health and Nutrition Manager, #9)

Barriers related to structures and infrastructures create frictions and amplify poor access which excludes partners in remote areas, but supportive tools enable by improving data flow for better decisions.

Organisational communications

Many stakeholders emphasised that within the inner setting of some organisations, open and transparent communication channels are not always present and concerns were raised about hierarchical dominance, particularly by executive managers.

I previously worked in an organization where communication was constrained by a hierarchical structure and power dynamics. Team members often competed to please the executives, and it felt like the only choices were to leave or stay, do the work, and collect the paycheck. (Programme Coordinator, #4)

They equally highlighted that in some other organisations inner communications are very welcoming, and executives actively engage in open dialogue and transparency, creating collaborative and inclusive working environment.

In other organizations where I worked and in my current workplace, executives are very friendly and actively encourage open, transparent communication between team members. (Health and Nutrition Manager, #7)

Organisational culture

Stakeholders stressed that misalignment of values and organisational priorities, hierarchical culture and resistance to change were major hinders to collaboration efforts.

Effective collaboration efforts can be difficult to achieve within an organization if there is a lack of shared values and priorities, a centralized hierarchical culture, and reluctance to adopt new approaches and embrace diverse perspectives. (Former Executive Director, #23)

Individual characteristics

Knowledge and competence

The stakeholders brought attention to the barriers arising from the competencies and qualifications of some employees, frequent personnel shifts or transfers within government or state partners and, in some cases, the appointment or recruitment of incompetent and unqualified candidates to such roles which affects the overall effectiveness of collaborative efforts.

One of the main challenges we often encounter is the removal of competent individuals from their positions and the appointment of incompetent and less qualified individuals. This requires us to start over again with capacity strengthening and orientation to align them with our current progress, which takes a significant amount of time and impacts the effectiveness of collaboration efforts. (Programme Director #10)

This staff turnover disrupts continuity, requiring repeated capacity building, which diverts resources from collaboration. Political appointments exacerbate this by prioritising loyalty over expertise.

Collaboration and coordination team members

Stakeholders praised the overall capabilities of coordination team members, highlighting their diverse skill sets that contribute to effective collaboration. These capabilities may include project management, technical expertise, data analysis, logistics and communication skills, among others. However, they also highlighted potential challenges faced by implementation team members. The challenges noted include resource constraints, tight timelines and competing priorities.

The team members in the coordination and collaborative work are diverse and possess sufficient competencies and skills to conduct their activities. However, we sometimes encounter challenges related to competing working schedules, deadlines, and limited timelines. Additionally, we often experience dissatisfaction with the lack of incentives, whether financial or non-financial. (District Medical Officer, #13)

Skilled teams drive effective coordination, but lack of incentives reduces engagement in high-pressure settings.

Leader’s attitudes and motivations

Leader’s positive attitudes were viewed as an enabler to effective collaboration that leads to actively seeking opportunities for joint interventions, valuing diverse perspectives and promoting a culture of inclusivity which creates an environment where collaboration thrives. On the contrary, stakeholders expressed concerns about leaders with negative attitudes or low motivation towards coordination and collaboration. Such attitudes can create a ripple effect, demotivating team members and hindering active engagement in collaborative efforts.

Some leaders are highly active in their engagement with collaborative efforts and consistently seek progress and impact. On the other hand, there are those who tend to remain quiet and contribute little to the collaboration, apart from their paper signings and occasional comments. (Programme Director, #12)

Motivated leaders foster inclusivity, driving participation, whereas passivity disengages teams, weakening coordination.

Process

Planning

A clear vision, mission, goals and implementation strategies were seen as critical for guiding collaborative interventions toward achieving the desired outcomes. Stakeholders recognised proper co-designing of goals and measures of the collaborative programme as essential for promoting accountability and transparency among partners.

When all partners share a common understanding of the expected outcomes, it fosters a sense of responsibility and encourages active participation in the coordination and collaboration efforts. (Programme Coordinator, #24)

Engaging

The role of encouraging active participation in driving effective coordination and collaboration among humanitarian organisations was acknowledged and praised. Initiatives that encourage dialogue and exchange of ideas, opportunities for partners to share their insights, concerns and suggestions were recognised as valuable for promoting active involvement.

Creating a safe environment for open discussions and respectful debates is essential to encourage active engagement, we foster a space where diverse viewpoints are embraced and valued. This can lead to ownership, a sense of belonging, and the development of strong relationships and mutual trust from the grassroots level, as seen in various cases. (Health and Nutrition Manager #7)

Reflecting and evaluating

Regular assessment of activities and gathering of accurately balanced quantitative and qualitative information to reflect the success of coordination and collaboration mechanisms was recognised as an enabling factor which allows for objective assessment and comparison, capturing experiences and narratives, enabling stakeholders to track the progress and trends and providing a deeper understanding of the impact of coordination and collaboration mechanisms on involved partners and communities.

Emphasizing the acquisition of accurate information from relevant sources regarding the activities we have collaborated on enables us to assess impacts and successful outcomes. This facilitates our evidence-based decision-making. (Health and Nutrition Manager, #02)

Clear planning aligns efforts, active engagement builds trust through dialogue and evaluations provide data-driven insights, strengthening coordination.

Table 2 illustrates the identified barriers and enablers within the CFIR framework, providing a structured view across various domains and constructs that impact collaboration and coordination efforts.

Table 2. Consolidated framework for implementation research: domains, constructs and their descriptions.

CFIR domains	Constructs	Barrier or enabler	Explanation of the constructs in context
Intervention characteristics	Adaptability	Barrier	Degree to which mechanisms can be refined for local volatility; hindered by resource and timeline uncertainties, leading to inefficiencies.
	Complexity	Barrier	Scope and disruptiveness of collaboration; amplified by multifaceted crises, causing confusion and duplication.
Outer setting	Critical incidents	Barrier	Security events or shocks interrupting activities; disrupts presence and commitment due to unpredictability.
	Local attitudes	Barrier/enabler	Sociocultural beliefs impacting acceptability; enables when aligned, barriers via resistance in sensitive programmes.
	Local conditions	Barrier	Environmental/political factors; introduce logistical and access challenges, forcing reactive responses.
	Partnerships and connections	Enabler	Networks enabling resource pooling; effective when equitable, but imbalanced dynamics hinder equity.
	External policies and regulations	Barrier	Donor/government frameworks; misalign efforts through varying requirements and delays.
	Financing	Barrier	Funding mechanisms; foster competition, shifting focus from joint to individual initiatives.
Inner setting	Organisational culture	Barrier/enabler	Shared norms; enable cohesion when aligned, barrier change in hierarchical setups.
	Structural characteristics	Barrier/enabler	Infrastructure (physical/IT/work); barriers access and clarity, enables when supportive of connectivity.
	Organisational communications	Barrier/enabler	Information practices; enable trust in open channels, barrier in hierarchical ones.
Individual characteristics	Knowledge and competence	Barrier/enabler	Individual skills; enable execution but hindered by turnover and unqualified appointments.
	Collaboration and coordination team members	Barrier/enabler	Team capabilities; diverse skills enable, but constraints like incentives barrier motivation.
	Leader’s attitudes and motivation	Barrier/enabler	Leadership influence; positive attitudes drive inclusivity, passive ones demotivate.
Process	Planning	Enabler	Defining roles/goals; fosters accountability and prevents misalignment.
	Engaging	Enabler	Stakeholder involvement; builds ownership and trust through dialogue.
	Reflecting and evaluating	Enabler	Assessment processes; enable data-driven decisions and trend tracking.

CFIR, Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research; IT, information technology.

Discussion

The landscape of humanitarian aid in Somalia is prevalent with complexities, shaped by armed conflicts, climatic shocks (droughts and floods), famine and widespread displacement.^{13 27 28} Achieving successful collaboration and coordination among various stakeholders, including humanitarian agencies, government entities and local communities, is pivotal in addressing these challenges. By using the CFIR framework, the perspectives of stakeholders involved in the study shed light on the barriers and enablers that define the effectiveness of collaboration and coordination efforts in Somalia’s unique context.

Barriers to effective collaboration and coordination

Among stakeholders, adaptability and complexity were recognised as significant barriers, emphasising that resource constraints, uncertain timelines and resistance to change hinder the ability to tailor coordination mechanisms in Somalia’s volatile humanitarian setting. The coexistence of diverse agencies with distinct goals and approaches, in a complex environment combined with multifaceted crises, can lead to confusion, conflicts, inefficiencies and duplicated efforts.²⁹ This underscores that Somalia’s protracted crisis demands highly flexible mechanisms to avoid inefficiencies and duplication, as rigid project scopes and approval processes fail to accommodate rapidly shifting operational demands, leading to fragmented efforts that undermine collaborative synergy. The implication is that coordination mechanisms lacking built-in adaptability are inherently flawed for the Somali operating environment, and the barrier is not just complexity itself but the interaction of complexity with institutional inflexibility.

Armed conflicts, unanticipated events and disasters were considered as major barrier that disrupts collaboration and coordination mechanisms, affecting stakeholder’s presence and commitment. Three studies conducted in Syria and Yemen evaluating health response coordination amid conflicts and attacks against healthcare facilities revealed that ongoing conflicts and attacks against health facilities hindered timely health response interventions.30,32 Somalia’s context introduces clan-based dynamics that deepen the impact. Localised conflicts, often tied to clan rivalries, not only pause activities but also erode trust among partners, as stakeholders prioritise clan loyalties over collective goals, unlike more centralised conflict zones where state actors dominate disruptions. This dynamic underscores the need for trust-building mechanisms that address Somalia’s clan-specific tensions to sustain coordination. The mechanism of disruption is thus both logistical, by blocking access and diverting resources, and psychological, by fostering a risk-averse culture where long-term collaborative planning becomes secondary to immediate survival.

Local attitudes, encompassing sociocultural values, were identified as both enabling and hindering, with alignment fostering community support but misalignment sparking resistance, particularly in sensitive programmes like GBV. However, there was a caution that interventions must navigate the delicate balance between tradition and respecting local values to ensure effectiveness. A prior study indicated that cultural practices must be taken into account to understand people’s pro-social behaviour.³³ This finding shows that effective coordination is contingent on deep community acceptance, which requires navigating cultural norms as a foundational step, not an optional add-on. Programmes that fail this test of cultural acceptability risk being rejected outright, making any inter-agency coordination moot and highlighting that community engagement is a prerequisite for sustainable collaboration.

Environmental conditions, for instance, man-made and natural disasters, serve as a backdrop that shapes the contours of collaboration efforts.³⁴ In the study, it was acknowledged that climatic shocks, including floods and droughts, introduce complexities, affecting resource allocation, transportation and logistical planning. The study also emphasised that political unpredictability undermines collaboration and coordination effectiveness. A narrative review reveals that factors such as political instabilities, state insecurities and neglect by state actors significantly impede humanitarian response prevention and containment.³⁵ Somalia’s federal-state fragmentation introduces unique governance challenges. Varying regulations across states require multiple registrations, delaying coordination in ways less evident in unitary fragile states. This fragmentation forces agencies into reactive, siloed responses, as navigating fluid political alliances consumes resources that could support joint efforts, highlighting a need for unified regulatory frameworks to streamline operations and enhance collaborative efficiency.

External policies and regulations were considered potential barriers as the current existing legal frameworks and policies both in the government and in the funding agency causing to leap the time and intensify the resources, making it hard for effective collaboration and coordination. Regarding the funding, stakeholders highlighted the resultant strain of funding opportunities on collaborative initiatives, which in turn shaped the effectiveness and the scope of coordination. Stressed donor resources led to limited funds, intensifying humanitarian needs and demands.³⁶ In exploring structural characteristics, stakeholders’ perspectives reveal a foundational layer that underpins collaboration. Physical and technology infrastructures, including meeting venues, the use of technology emerge as both challenging and hindering factors. Venues located in isolated areas hinder participation, impeding the flow of vital information. However, the use of technology, for instance, GIS facilitated collaborative efforts. IT tools can improve collaboration mechanisms, but cost and availability of internet may limit their use.³⁷ The barrier posed by poor IT infrastructure, for example, is not merely an inconvenience; it actively excludes partners in remote areas from virtual coordination platforms, creating a two-tiered system that undermines the inclusivity essential for effective collaboration.

The working conditions were perceived as a barrier as there were no clear roles and responsibilities, particularly from government representatives. Enquiring into organisational communications, some organisations face barriers to open dialogue, where hierarchical structures restrain active listening and mutual respect. Organisational cultures dominated by hierarchies inhibit collaboration’s potential.³⁸ This indicates that the internal organisational health and culture of participating agencies is a critical prerequisite for their ability to engage effectively in external collaboration, a nuance that is often overlooked in inter-agency coordination literature.

The lack of recruiting the necessary qualified and competent personnel and the constant shift of competent individuals for political and personal reasons, particularly from national NGOs and governmental departments, was perceived as a hindrance to sustained collaboration. A qualitative study conducted in the region of Puntland, a semi-autonomous region in Somalia, revealed that incompetent and unqualified candidates are hired primarily due to nepotism or personal reasons.³⁹ This finding goes beyond mentioning ‘capacity gaps’ to highlight a systemic issue of political patronage that actively disrupts continuity and wastes capacity-building efforts, eroding the institutional memory crucial for sustained collaboration.

Enablers to effective collaboration and coordination

In the study, partnerships and connections were perceived as mechanisms that either enable or hinder the pooling of resources, knowledge and expertise. An exploratory analysis shows that pre-established partnerships in terms of resources and experience among implementers facilitate coordination and improve performance.⁴⁰ While some stakeholders express concerns about one-sided partnerships dominated by international agencies, others celebrate collaborations where open dialogue and transparency thrive. When partnerships are equitable, with shared decision-making and financial fairness, they are a powerful enabler. When they are imbalanced, reinforcing power dynamics, they become a significant barrier to trust. This explains why localisation efforts often stall and implies that enabling collaboration requires moving beyond the existence of partnerships to critically examining and reforming their architecture to ensure genuine power-sharing.

Stakeholder’s perceptions on humanitarian leader’s attitudes and motivations were seen as an enabler for shaping collaborative environments. When leaders exhibit positive attitudes, motivation and commitment, the entire collaborative ecosystem thrives.⁴¹ Supportive leadership acts as a counterbalance to a volatile outer setting, creating pockets of stability and trust where collaboration can flourish despite external challenges.

The perceptions on the process of collaboration and coordination mechanisms, for instance, planning, engaging, reflecting and evaluating of collaborative activities were recognised as enablers that lay the foundation for streamlined collaboration, use of information for evidence-based decision-making and prevention of confusion, inefficiencies and misalignment. It was also acknowledged to improve the power of genuine involvement that considers diverse perspectives. This shows that collaborative processes are not just administrative tasks but are essential for building the social capital and trust that underpin effective coordination. These processes enable adaptive management and learning, which are critical for navigating uncertainty.

Transparent communication channels, shared values, beliefs and norms were highlighted as transformative enablers. Organisations that embrace shared values, beliefs and norms reap the rewards of collaborative success.⁴² This internal cohesion and transparency enable the trust and psychological safety necessary for organisations to engage authentically in external collaborative ventures.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that humanitarian agencies operating in Somalia navigate a complex web of contextual factors that critically hinder or enable their collaboration and coordination mechanisms. The findings reveal that barriers such as rigid adaptability and complexity constraints, recurrent climatic shocks and conflicts, deeply held sociocultural practices, political fragmentation across federal states, restrictive external policies, intense financing competition, inadequate structural infrastructures and high staff turnover collectively fragment humanitarian responses within Somalia’s resource-scarce context. Conversely, key enablers including genuinely equitable partnerships, supportive and motivated leadership, transparent organisational communication and robust processes for planning, engaging and evaluating collaborative initiatives foster resilience by effectively leveraging local knowledge and building trust. Somalia’s unique humanitarian crisis, characterised by the confluence of conflict, climate fragility and political decentralisation, demands uniquely agile and context-sensitive coordination mechanisms to counter systemic inefficiencies. The presence of intricate clan dynamics and a fragmented federal governance structure intensifies these barriers in ways not commonly observed in conflict-only settings. To translate these findings into tangible improvements, policymakers and the Somali government should prioritise unifying governance and regulatory frameworks across federal states to reduce bureaucratic impediments. International and national agencies must move beyond rhetorical commitments to genuinely prioritise localisation by establishing equitable power-sharing and decision-making partnerships with local NGOs. Donors are urged to move beyond allocating specified quotas to local NGOs and instead adopt harmonised reporting requirements and provide multiyear, flexible funding to fundamentally reduce transaction costs and destructive competition. By systematically addressing these specific barriers and strategically amplifying the identified enablers, stakeholders can significantly enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of aid delivery, ensuring a more resilient and responsive coordination system capable of meeting the profound needs of Somali communities.

Limitations

The findings of this study are deeply contextualised within the complex humanitarian environment of Somalia, which may limit their direct transferability to other settings. However, the insights generated may hold significant relevance and provide valuable lessons for other fragile and conflict-affected states facing similar challenges of political fragmentation, climatic shocks and operational volatility.

The reliance on self-reported data collected through interviews, while essential for capturing in-depth perspectives, introduces the potential for biases, such as social desirability bias, where participants may have provided responses they perceived as favourable rather than reflecting their complete honest experiences. Furthermore, the use of a purposive sampling technique, although strategically employed to ensure the inclusion of information-rich cases from diverse stakeholder groups, means that the perspectives captured may not be fully representative of the entire spectrum of humanitarian actors operating across Somalia.

The trustworthiness of the findings was strengthened through methodological rigour, including analyst triangulation and iterative team discussions to refine interpretations. Nonetheless, the potential for researcher influence persists, as the first author’s prior professional involvement in the sector, despite active reflexivity practices to bracket preconceptions, may have shaped participant interactions and data interpretation. Despite these limitations, the study offers granular, contextually rich insights that are invaluable for understanding the intricate dynamics of coordination within one of the world’s most demanding humanitarian operational landscapes.

Data availability statement

Data are available upon reasonable request. All data relevant to the study are included in the article or uploaded as supplementary information.