If you're beginning your study with Sidney Smith, then you are leaving out a substantial amount of material that is germane to the title. That is, unless your study is meant to glorify Smith and tout him as an innovator in joint operations, which he was not.
And he was not involved in the battle of Maida and the campaign was a failure. Winning a small action and then losing the campaign is not a success nor can it be termed 'decisive.' It was a minor action in a secondary theater with the result being a British withdrawal to Sicily and Massena being successful in southern Italy with Gaeta falling to the French after a successful siege.
The British were conducting joint operations in the Americas long before Smith was born in 1764. During the French and Indian War as well as the War of the American Revolution the British became expert in joint operations.
The Americans and French conducted combined operations in the War of the American Revolution, one a major failure (the siege of Savannah) and the second a great success (Yorktown), which included the defeat of British naval forces at the Battle of the Virginia Capes and the surrender of a British army, the second one of the war.
The British capture of Charleston, South Carolina was a major joint success in 1780.
Back to Maida, winning the battle and losing the campaign is not a strategic success, let alone a decisive one. It is akin to the British losing the campaigns for the Carolinas in the War of the American Revolution where Nathaniel Greene, the American commander, lost all three major actions and one siege. However, the British lost so heavily in all four actions that they were forced to withdraw to the coast where they held only Charleston. At the end of the war they held only New York, Charleston, and Savannah and that was thanks to the Royal Navy.