Networking is defined as exchanging information for mutual benefit; it does not require much time or trust nor the sharing turf. It is a very useful strategy for organizations that are in the initial stages of working relationships.

Coordinating is defined as exchanging information for mutual benefit and altering activities for a common purpose; it requires more time and trust but does not include the sharing turf. Coordinating is often used to create more user-friendly access to programs, services, and systems.

Cooperating is defined as exchanging information, altering activities, and sharing resources for mutual benefit and a common purpose; it requires significant amounts of time, high levels of trust, and a significant sharing of turf. Cooperating may require complex organizational processes and agreements in order to achieve the expanded benefits of mutual action.

Collaborating is defined as exchanging information, altering activities, sharing resources, and a willingness to enhance the capacity of another for mutual benefit and a common purpose; it requires the highest levels of trust, considerable amounts of time, and an extensive sharing of turf. Collaboration also involves sharing risks, resources, and rewards and, when fully achieved, can produce the greatest benefits of mutual action.

He also offers a useful distinction between top-down and bottom up coalitions:

Collaborative betterment coalitions are initiated by public, private, or nonprofit institutions outside or beyond the control of communities or constituencies to be assisted. 

Collaborative empowerment coalitions include a strong emphasis on community organizing, grassroots leadership development, and increasing the ownership and power of those primarily affected by the coalition's activities. In collaborative empowerment coalitions people and communities are not "targets" of institutional intervention but subjects of their own purposes.

Nowell, B. (2009). Profiling Capacity for Coordination and Systems Change: The Relative Contribution of Stakeholder Relationships in Interorganizational Collaboratives. American Journal of Community Psychology, 44(3-4), 196-212. doi:10.1007/s10464-009-9276-2

Findings suggest that if the targeted goal is improved coordination, then fostering strong leadership as well as collaborative and reflexive decision-making practices may be the most powerful levers for improving effectiveness. Conversely, if the goal is systems change, then collaboratives may be well advised to pay particular attention to the quality of relationships among their stakeholders. 

Another result of interest in this analysis is the finding that shared philosophy had one of the strongest unique effects on systems change outcomes. However, findings indicate that perceptions of fundamental differences in philosophies concerning the targeted issue and how it should be addressed may significantly hinder a collaborative's ability to promote systems change. For example, in a recent case study of a protracted environmental conflict, Gray (2004) concluded that the most significant factor preventing a collaborative solution was the existence of differences among stakeholders in their frameworks of understanding related to how they conceptualized the problem that linked them and how they felt the problem should be resolved.

This paper outlines five different relational qualities selected based on their identified importance to collaboration by both current literature as well by key informants. These are: (1) communication frequency; i.e., how frequently a stakeholder communicates with another stakeholder outside of collabo- rative meetings (e.g., Austin 2000; Reagans and Zuckerman 2001); (2) responsiveness to concerns; i.e., the extent to which a given stakeholder is perceived by another to be responsive to them and their concerns (e.g., Mizrahi and Rosenthal 2001; Rivard and Morrissey 2003); (3) trust in follow-through; i.e., the extent to which a given stakeholder is perceived by another to be trustworthy to follow through on commitments (e.g., Campbell et al. 1999; Mizrahi and Rosenthal 2001; Nielson 2004; Vangen and Huxham 2003); (4) legitimacy; i.e., the extent to which a given stakeholder is perceived by another to contribute a unique perspective or area of expertise valuable to the work of the collaborative (e.g., Gray 1985); and (5) shared philosophy; i.e., the extent to which a given stakeholder is perceived by another to share a similar philosophy about the collaborative's targeted issue and how it should be addressed (e.g., Gamache and Asmus 1999; Mizrahi and Rosenthal 1992).