Collaboration as it really is

Working together, alone

Collaboration is the participation of independent actors in

mutual interactions to deliver a specific result, either chosen or

not. The so-called collaboration is the outcome of the interactions

that occur, initiated by the different participants for their own

good reasons, but collaboration is not the purpose.

Introduction

Over the past months, we have been writing and thinking frequently about

“collaboration”: what it is, what it means, how it can be used, how it can be improved.

Most of this was done in the context of discussions about Enterprise 2.0 and Social

Business, where more and better connectedness is often preached as being the Holy

Grail to get to more and better collaboration.

To some extent, that is true. However, it does not tell the complete story. Therefore, in

some of our posts, we have been arguing against such “jump-to-conclusions” thinking.

However, after a while, we had to discover that also our own ideas were not always as

accurate or as complete as we initially thought.

So, this paper is essentially a thinking exercise about what collaboration really is. The

purpose is not to get the ultimate proof for our own ideas, but simply to get to a better

understanding, a deeper insight into what collaboration really is and therefore, to get a

more correct view on how this might create more value for our organisations and

more meaning in our life.

This is a discussion paper so, as always, we welcome your comments and ideas.

Key observations

The following gives a brief overview of the most important observations that result

from our analysis. Understanding these will help you better understand the potential

success or failure of so-called “social” initiatives.

Collaboration is an outcome, or if you want, a side-effect of the

act of “working together”; it is not a purpose, nor objective.

The key variable for collaboration is the “collaboration intent”,

the willingness to engage in a joint effort based upon our

perception of the potential risks, inconveniences and rewards that

the collaboration will bring.

This perception is largely function of our “context” as an employee

within the organisation, a context which, in most situations,

allows for little manoeuvrability allowing us to adjust our context

for a better collaboration intent.

Consequently, solutions such as social tools that essentially

address the “ease of working together” itself by improving

connectedness, find-ability and share-ability, add little to improve

the real level and the quality of the collaboration since they have

hardly impact on the collaboration intent.

In addition, above mentioned “context” is also a “protection

frame” that further reduces the need / willingness to fully engage

in collaboration. Again, social tools do not provide a real

alternative for this protection frame.

Finally, collaboration remains a thing of humans that interact and

therefore, the outcome is largely function of the personalities of

all participants. Again, no tools or workarounds will

fundamentally change this. Same as for most situations of real

knowledge work, you simply need the right individuals for the

right job.

The collaboration “system”

Like most things in life, collaboration is a simple thing. However, we humans have

tendency not to think too much about simple things and then, they sometimes seem

to become complex, since they rarely work out as planned. This paper is an exercise in

simple thinking about simple things so that we might understand what makes them

often complex.

What is collaboration?

As some have argued in the comments on our blog, collaboration has many facets and

consequently, the inner workings of collaboration are not always the same.

That is true. When thinking about how people work together when facing a disaster, it

is clear that this has little to do with the way we work together in the context of a

business project.

So, for the present paper, the scope is limited to collaboration in a "regular" business

context, either within a single company or between companies and therefore, the

starting point for the discussion is this Wikipedia definition:

Collaboration is working together to achieve a goal. It is a

recursive process where two or more people or organizations work

together to realize shared goals, (this is more than the

intersection of common goals seen in co-operative ventures, but a

deep, collective, determination to reach an identical objective)

This definition is OK, but as we will see, it is really insufficient to clearly understand the

reasons why collaboration sometimes does work and why it so often doesn’t work at

all.

The collaboration "system"

To get to this deeper understanding, we must look at the larger picture, at the

"context" of the collaboration, at the "system" that drives the interactions between all

participants and doing so, determines the success or the failure of the collaboration.

We’ll do so by looking at how and why two companies work together. For the reasons

that will become obvious later on, this is a more simple and straightforward model

that we then can extend to understand why individuals work together (or not).

As always, the basic premise is a company looking for a solution. In this case, Company

A that has its corporate goals and ambitions and that has identified an intermediate

objective or deliverable that will help it on its path towards success.

If Company A can get itself to this intermediate objective or deliverable in an efficient

and effective way, there is no need for collaboration. Of course, reality is different and

often, a company has to reach outside to complement its own capabilities.

Company A

Company A

GOALS

Objective /

Deliverable

So this brings us to the next picture where we see our Company A working together

with Company B, in some way, in order to jointly get to this intermediate objective or

deliverable.

As the graph suggests, only the intermediate objective or deliverable is shared.

However, there is no need that the corporate goals of both companies are identical. In

theory, they can be completely different and even conflicting.

Moreover, even the notion of the “common intermediate objective or deliverable” is a

bit stretched. For Company A, this really is a deliverable it wants to have, because it

will help the company on its path towards success. However, for Company B, most

likely, this deliverable has no further importance for its own strategy. Only the act of

participating in the creation of the deliverable is important.

Still, both companies view the intermediate objective as something that adds value,

something that will help them on their path to success and therefore are willing to

work together, be it perhaps for very different reasons.

The dirty little secret of collaboration

OK, most likely, the above will seem rather obvious.

However, is it really?

For most of us, collaboration is seen as a very positive act. "Working together to

achieve a common goal". Could it be nicer?

Company A

Company B

GOALS

Joint

effort

Company B

Company A

GOALS

Objective /

Deliverable

However, reality is that in most collaboration acts "nice" is only a "nice to have"

characteristic. For collaboration to succeed, it isn’t really necessary that all parties

involved really like each other. In most cases, they don’t. Just have a look at how you

work together with your colleagues. Do you really like all of them? Are they real

friends?

If collaboration would require that all parties involved really "like" each other, little

productive would happen in this world. But fortunately, collaboration is a rather selfish

act that you participate in because it will bring you closer to your GOAL, your own

chosen GOAL. And that behaviour is essentially what we call "economy".

Collaboration and trust

As we described above, the basic concept of collaboration is simple: working together

to achieve a common goal or objective. In addition, we also have the reassuring

understanding that we still can collaborate, even while more or less disliking each

other. So, why is it still so difficult?

The thing called "confidence"

Collaboration is a fundamental human behaviour. The human race wouldn’t have

survived without it. So why is it often such a problem in a business context?

Well, the answer is quite simple. Technically speaking, collaboration in a business

context is not really more difficult than it is in our private life. Only, our perception of

the level of control we (think to) have over the situation is completely different.

Also in our private life, our level of "real" control is limited. To a large extent, we are

"lived" by our context: the family we are part of, the society we belong to, the

neighbourhood where we live, our education, our job. Still, in most cases, we do not

really feel constrained by this context and we are willing to take the necessary risks:

getting married, getting kids, buying a house...

In general, in our private life, we have a rather low awareness of potential risks and

high confidence that we will manage, even when things go somewhat wrong. In a

business context, which is by definition a much more controlled and planned

environment, we have a much higher awareness of potential risks and a much lower

confidence that we will manage.

Why this difference?

Well, the main reason for this is that a company is not a natural system. A company is

an artefact, which existence is governed by specific laws and rules that allow it to exist

as a whole at the size and the level of complexity that it has. By definition, every non-

natural system is fragile since it does not exist close to its natural "balance point" and

every uncontrolled change can make it collapse. It’s an elephant on long thin legs.

To some extent, collaboration is an act of being open for uncontrolled change.

Stepping into a discussion with a stranger

The collaboration "system" that we presented above is simple enough. However,

applying this in the business context of a company with a high degree of "need for

control" introduces quite a number of perceived risks.

Inability / uncertainty

First, and this is not something the company has full control of, there is the challenge

of finding and selecting the right partner. This problem cannot be completely solved

today. Despite all our communication capabilities and our access to company

information in various forms, finding and selecting the right partner remains a

challenge.

inability /

uncertainty

joint

effort

diversity

objective /

deliverable

loss of

control

dependency

-decision

to act

-

-

+

+

-

This challenge will not be easily addressed. A main issue here is openness. Having a

good partner is an asset that you do not readily want to share with everyone.

Dependency

A second challenge is dependency. Companies do not want to depend too much upon

other parties. Although many of them have grown to large collaborative ecosystems

with suppliers and subcontractors, most of this is strictly hierarchical and allows for

little mutual influential interaction.

Loss of control

A bit in the same context, there is the aversion for too much loss of control.

This concern is of course completely expected in the context of the discussion we have

here but to a large extent, it is a false feeling. Indeed, most companies that want to

have a high degree of control will in reality overdo it, adding unnecessary layers of

authority, procedures and rules that only slow down the pace of activity without

substantially improving the "safety" of the system.

Having to loosen up some part of the formal control can improve the operational

performance of such company.

Diversity

Finally, there is diversity. Differences in the mutual "culture" of the collaborating

companies can be a significant burden for success. Bringing in a partner that can

complement your own capabilities or that is more efficient in the delivery of certain

services, will by definition mean that this partner will be "different" in some way and,

most likely, this will necessitate some changes in your own default behaviour in order

to make the collaboration succeed.

At the same time, such confrontation of different cultural views can also be an

opportunity to detect new possibilities, new ways of addressing certain problems,

which can benefit both parties.

Alone, together

OK, this is only a very brief and incomplete overview and much more can be said about

this. In essence, none of these perceived risks really should be a major problem.

However, they become problems to the extent that we want to keep our "context"

identical.

So, this brings us to this interesting dualism:

• On the one hand, as we described in above, collaboration is perfectly possible

while both parties have completely different visions about their final

destination. They only have to agree on the intermediate objective or

deliverable.

• On the other hand, if we want to maximize the value that the collaboration can

bring, we cannot restrict our context to what it was before, which might mean

that we have to review the vision we have about our final destination.

It is a bit like marriage, but without the pheromones.

Social collaboration

In the first part of this paper, we briefly described the "system" of collaboration

between two companies. This was a very high-level overview that didn't touch on

many of the specifics of business collaboration, but it is sufficient to identify some of

the basic rules:

• In order to collaborate, the companies do not need to have identical world

views.

• For most companies, collaboration will introduce elements that are seen as

risks or inconveniences, which can be a burden to act and to perform.

• By definition, collaboration is a confrontation of different perceptions, which is

both a nuisance and an opportunity for learning and improving.

Now, let's move on to individuals. However, we will not yet examine how individuals

collaborate in a business context. Instead, we will look at how individuals "collaborate"

in a social media context or, as it was previously coined, in a Web 2.0 context. As we all

know, the visible success of Web 2.0 platforms has been the incentive for people such

as Andrew McAfee to wonder what marvels would happen if similar tools were

deployed within the enterprise. And he coined it Enterprise 2.0, the dawn of emergent

collaboration.

As we all know meanwhile, Enterprise 2.0 wasn't really a homerun. And the reason for

this is, once again, very simple: we thought that we saw expressions of real

collaboration in the Web 2.0 space, but in reality, there were none.

It is about the individual, not about collaboration

What follows here is not new. We already wrote this in July 2009 in our 'Enterprise 2.0

- Enter the dark force' post:

"The essence of Web 2.0 is about individuals who make use of some form of

technology (wiki, social network, etc.) to gain a personal advantage.

With Web 2.0, we are always talking about social networks, social media,

collaboration, but in reality, the main driving force of the social web is not social.

It is selfish personal interest. People want to participate because it fulfils some of

their desires. This can be a desire for contact, self-expression, self-promotion,

recognition, escaping the daily rut, whatever. However, always because they

want to, because this participation delivers a direct, personal benefit.

When multiple individuals participate using the same platform, interactions will

occur. The individuals can/will mutually influence each other's experience and

this will result in "something", in some kind of side-effects. It will create a new

context for each participant that will influence the willingness for further

participation. In addition, once a platform reaches a certain level of participation

or starts delivering sufficient "side-effects", this can become the reason for non-

participants to get attracted to the platform anyway. But, of course, it can also

work the other way.

Individual A

Individual A

GOALS

participation

Individual C

Individual C

GOALS

Individual B

Individual B

GOALS

participationparticipation

So, the expressions that we commonly use such as "social" or "collaborative" are

in fact not very well chosen. They refer to our perception of the potential

outcome of the joint participation, but blur our view on the real mechanism

behind."

OK, that was 2009, but these statements are still equally valid today. Web 2.0 or social

media are not about collaboration, they are about participation for a personal

advantage and all these participations create a "context", some form of deliverable,

which, such as in the case of Wikipedia, can be seen as valuable.

However, we must not confuse this participation with real collaboration. The

difference might seem subtle, but think about the risks and inconveniences associated

with collaboration that we discussed above.

Are you experiencing any such things when participating on a social platform? Of

course not! The nice thing about social networks is that they are essentially opt-in. You

participate because you choose to and if the thing doesn't suit your needs, you quit.

No questions asked. It is essentially a zero-commitment environment.

Unfortunately, business is not exactly a zero-commitment environment and that is

where it all starts to go wrong. The power of "social" is enormous, but social does not

work unless a) you have the authority to decide whether you participate or not and b)

the final deliverable is not set beforehand.

As we all know, none of these conditions fits very well with the reality of today's

enterprises.

Participative collaboration

Above, we described how individuals participate on Web 2.0 platforms or in social

networks and how this sometimes, such as in the case of Wikipedia, delivers tangible,

valuable outcomes. This "participative collaboration" model also exists in business

contexts and to some extent; it has proven to be one of the more successful models in

the Enterprise 2.0 space.

One of the best known examples of such participative collaboration model in a

business context is crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing, the act whereby a company,

directly or indirectly via a platform such as Innocentive, tries to attract an expert with

the right knowledge and expertise to address a specific business problem.

For the company, finding this expert with the right solution allows it to move further

on its road to success. For the expert, being able to deliver the solution means a

financial reward and perhaps, some form of recognition. Both sides win.

This model has been proven successful and therefore, it has been used at length (or

should we say: abused?) as the "proof" that the Enterprise 2.0 concept really delivers

results.

Well, nothing really wrong with that. We don't mind that we see crowdsourcing as part

of the Enterprise 2.0 space and we don't mind that we call it "collaboration". However,

as we have written before: "Words are an extremely poor representation of our reality

and it only gets worse when we write them down." And we'll add to that: "especially in

PowerPoint".

The problem with putting everything under the same umbrella or calling it all

"collaboration" is that it clouds our view on what makes a certain model successful or

why it simply can work.

In this case, we see "a form of" collaboration that delivers results simply because this

model avoids many of the obstacles that we experience in "real" collaboration

contexts.

Company A

Company B

GOALS

Company B

Company A

GOALS

Objective /

Deliverable

participationparticipation

Same as for the individuals participating in the Web 2.0 space, the "participative

collaboration model" introduces few of the risks or inconveniences that we discussed

earlier in the context of the collaboration between companies. The only one that

essentially remains is addressing the problem of finding and selecting the right expert.

However, this is largely addressed by the platform and since the expert brings the right

solution, this is not really a big issue.

For the rest, there are very little consequences. After the deal, both parties continue

on their own path. No questions asked.

"That expert really was a bit weird!"

"Yes, but now he's gone. Glad I don't have to work with him!"

"Anyway, he would not fit in this company."

A nice solution indeed, but therefore, also very little interaction and mutual influence,

hence little opportunity for learning and for improving. Somehow, a missed

opportunity.

But it works.

This thing called “employee”

OK, let us finally start talking about the individuals who collaborate in an enterprise

context: the employees.

And before doing so, let us further clarify our view on what we think “real”

collaboration is. As we wrote before, the word 'collaboration' can be used to refer to

various flavours of "working together". However, for the sake of this discussion, we

will assume the following characteristics:

• The task at hand requires the involvement of several individuals; no single

person is able to deliver the final outcome on his own (within the required

timeframe).

• The final outcome is largely undefined; there might have been similar tasks

before and there is certainly some form of "high concept" definition, but it

remains a unique deliverable, not done before.

• The path to the final deliverable is largely unknown. There might be past

experiences, best practices, methodologies, etc. that provide guidance;

however, the real path will unfold as the group proceeds.

• Due to the above, there is the need for intense interaction between all

participants, exchanging information, making decisions and agreeing on next

steps.

OK, this is a bit challenging, but it is also the type of collaboration that can deliver the

greatest value for the company. The more everything is known and predefined, the

less there is potential for a real breakthrough.

The "collaboration system" that is shown here isn't much different from the one we

discussed earlier for the collaboration between companies. Instead of companies, we

now have a number of employees who have been assigned to the task of realizing this

objective / deliverable, likely chosen based upon their skills, previous experience, etc.

The successful completion of the task will bring all parties closer to their individual

goals. That’s the theory.

However, we all know that things aren't always as simple as they look. So, why is there

this feeling that collaboration within the enterprise often doesn't work as easy as it

seems to work in other social contexts?

Of course, all risks and inconveniences that we listed in the context of the

collaboration between companies are also present here in some way: uncertainty /

inability, dependency, loss of control, diversity. However, that doesn't yet explain the

difference. There are always risks and inconveniences in any context.

No, what is different here is our perception of these risks and what we can do about

them, hence our willingness to really take on the challenge.

In the inter-company context, we essentially have collaboration between autonomous

agents. Most likely, that is not completely true, but certainly, to some extent.

However, in the above scenario of collaboration between individuals, these individuals

are employees. We might think that they also are acting as autonomous agents, but in

reality they are well aware of their restricted context as an employee.

And that restricted context as an employee means two things:

• First, their perception of risk will be heavily biased because they will be held

accountable for the result, without however having final authority.

• Second, their ability to adjust your "collaboration context" is limited. Unlike the

individuals participating in the Web 2.0 space, they did not really opt in and

they cannot opt out. It's their job. In addition, many of the easy options that

are otherwise available, such as avoiding the individuals you don't like, are not

really an option here.

In addition, unlike the scenario of the inter-company collaboration, here the parties

involved haven't really chosen the intermediate objective or deliverable. In most cases,

it is a given horse. It is part of their job. Therefore, the likeliness that this objective is

really aligned with their personal goals is small. At least, for most employees in most

companies.

Companies are artificial constructs that do not adhere to the laws of 'normal' complex

social systems. Within the enterprise, collaboration is a complex social system trapped

in an artificial context that disables most of the agility that is really needed for

collaboration to succeed.

Is Enterprise 2.0 a game changer?

In this paper, we have examined the “system” of collaboration, first, between

companies and then, between individuals within an organisation. And we assume that

the Enterprise 2.0 fans who have read this often have wondered: “When is the meat

coming? When are they finally going to talk about Enterprise 2.0?”

Indeed, enabling more and better collaboration has always been the mantra of the

Enterprise 2.0 message.

What is happening? How to collaborate? How can I influence? How to share?

Who knows what? Where do I find…? When should I contribute?

These are just some of the questions and issues that we picked up from a presentation

given at a recent Enterprise 2.0 event. Questions and issues that Enterprise 2.0 is

supposed to address.

And of course, to some extent, it really does. Some of these tools can really bridge the

collaboration gaps that exist in today’s global enterprises, streamlining information

flows and, in general, making information more available and findable.

However, in the context of our discussion about the “collaboration system”, we also

must be well aware of the fact that the advantages of Enterprise 2.0 essentially play at

the level of the “collaboration act”, but that it adds very little that will address the

“collaboration intent”.

Collaboration intent

Whatever the Enterprise 2.0 evangelists might claim, the success of collaboration is

only to a limited extent a function of the quality of the tools that are being used, of the

“ease” of collaborating. Instead, collaboration success is essentially a function of the

matching of the collaboration intent, of the commitment of the various participants.

And that collaboration intent is the resultant of their individual perception of the risks,

inconveniences and potential rewards that the collaboration will bring. When the right

intent is there, the available tools don’t really matter. Even e-mail will do.

In addition, as the countless adoption discussions of the past have clearly shown, the

introduction of collaborative tools is only a minor trigger for participation and for more

collaboration. The greatest “successes” are essentially seen in contexts where the tools

can really be used (or have to be used) “in the flow” of the daily tasks, streamlining

interactions and information flows.

However, that is what we call “improvement”. While valuable, does this give us the

transformation that will create the agility that is needed in today’s fast-paced, complex

business environment?

Reality is that Enterprise 2.0 tools can surely improve the “technical quality” of the

collaboration act, but they do not fundamentally change the “depth” of the

collaboration. For that to happen, individuals must be allowed to reach outside their

restricted context as an employee, enabling them to adjust their perception of

potential risks, inconveniences and rewards, hence, their collaboration intent and

commitment.

However, that also means exploring new paths, trying new approaches, doing different

things. To what extent is there room for this in today’s organisations?

Especially in the larger corporations, where Enterprise 2.0 tools are often essentially

used to “patch” the deficiencies of isolation, poor information flows and

disconnectedness, resulting from the size and the geographical spread of the

organisation, there is little room for exploring new paths. Such companies are

essentially focused on the replication of existing capabilities, not the discovery of new

capabilities and therefore, they leave little room for reaping the benefits that real

collaboration can bring.

So, Enterprise 2.0 will not be the game changer for collaboration. It can be an enabler

to support new forms of organisations, but it will not transform the enterprise into a

“social enterprise”.

For the social enterprise to exist, companies have to be organised and managed based

upon other values and principles than what we have today. And getting there, if ever

we can, will not be a matter of tools or technology.

Fundamental change is never a matter of tools, always a matter of people.

Epilogue

In this paper, we identified "collaboration intent" as the fundamental variable for

successful collaboration. Collaboration intent, the resultant of our perception of the

risks, inconveniences and potential rewards that the collaboration will bring.

Of course, creating the organisational conditions that make that such collaboration

intent is maximised is not a straightforward undertaking. Too many rules, roles and

structures in today's organisations are roadblocks for creating such conditions.

However, that is a discussion that would lead us too far. So, let us assume that we

have the right conditions for our collaboration intent. Will collaboration then happen

seamlessly?

Unfortunately, it does not. At least, not always. After all, collaboration remains an act

of a group of individuals and these individuals all have their own individual "ability to

collaborate".

Collaboration ability

If there is one fundamental flaw in nearly everything that is said or written about

Enterprise 2.0, social business and other social enterprises, then it is this thinking

about groups and not about individuals. In nearly every discourse, there is this

underlying assumption that the workforce is like a set of communicating vessels where

knowledge will automatically flow, be replicated and be absorbed by all that are

interconnected. Give us more connectedness and we have a better enterprise.

Well, that is absolute nonsense.

It is not because a group consists of multiple individuals that we must start thinking in

terms of averages. That only blurs our view on what makes things really work (or not).

We ourselves are old enough to have worked in a company, be it also large and

geographically dispersed, with nonetheless a great, open spirit. All conditions for great

collaboration intent were there. Never seen better. However, was it perfect?

Of course not! Even in such organisation, there were colleagues that were a real pain

to work with. Nothing about social networking or social tools would have ever changed

that. It was hard-wired.

Therefore, we must stop thinking about "social" as something that raises the "average"

competence level. Mathematically, it does, of course. However, that improvement will

not at all be distributed equally. Same as for Nielsen's "participation inequality" theory

or the so-called "1% - 9% - 90%" rule, competence improvement will be distributed in a

very unequal way.

Digital and networking and connectedness are great amplifiers and therefore, offer

great opportunities for learning. However, it is not because all these posts, status

messages and tweets get into your timeline that it makes you any better or smarter.

It's not about what you get, but about what you do with it. And finally, that remains

the decision of the individual and not of the group.

And most likely, it is also better so.

An Xpragma white paper June 2012 Frontpage picture: Kevin Dooley www.flickr.com/photos/pagedooley/ Tags: BIM (Business Interaction Management), collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, social business

Xpragma bvba

Mechelsesteenweg 254 2820 Bonheiden

Belgium

+32-(0)15-340 845 info@xpragma.com www.xpragma.com