Mind the “Collaboration Trap”
10 May 2010 Tweet If collaboration is the answer, what is the question? [Aside: Yes Hal, 42 is a perfect answer but what is the question?] When is collaboration the answer? When is collaboration not the answer, and why not?
Remember, the old saying: when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail! Collaboration is not a magic bullet. It is a great hammer, but for the right nail (purpose). When collaboration becomes the goal unto itself, we refer to this as the “Collaboration Trap.”
We often see such statements as when 2+2=5 then it is good collaboration and when 2+2=3 then it is not good collaboration. Point well taken, but what does it mean? Does it mean that collaboration was the right approach but the effort went off-track in which it produced 2+2=3? Or, does it mean that collaboration was not the right approach for the effort and it was doomed to 2+2=3 before even the start? How do we know when collaboration is the right approach or not, before we undertake the effort?
While the extremes or hyperbole often clarify the thought process, we are not talking about the absence or presence of collaboration. Instead, it is more instructive to think about a continuum of the level of the collaborative effort, in its scope and intensity.
Let us consider a couple of examples. Not too long ago, my DSL connection suddenly dropped its data rate. A technician came and conducted tests and took readings. Having determined that he could not solve the problem by himself, he escalated the issue with technicians at the central office (CO), sharing the requisite information, such as readings of the test and his initial diagnosis, possibilities of what could be wrong, data rates for my billing plan, etc. He worked with a team of people to diagnose the real problem and resolve it. Let’s not get into the debate here over the differences between collaboration and coordination. The point is that the technician was initially a solo performer and then a member of a problem-solving team, based on the purpose and need.
Now consider the situation of a salesperson preparing for a sales call for a technology solution for a prospective client. This effort may include working with sales engineers, marketing, accounting, contracts, and so on. In fact, the sales person may take a sales engineer to the call. This situation contrasts nicely with the earlier example of the technician in its scope and intensity.
We have read that the back-end processes in an enterprise do not require collaboration, whereas the market-facing activities, such as marketing & sales, are collaboration-intensive. We have seen another approach in which one categorizes the “types” of processes in an enterprise and then judges which types of processes are collaboration-worthy. Well and good! Here is the problem with these approaches: they deviate from the fundamentals of collaboration; that is, begin with the purpose and end-goal of the collaborative effort.
We must approach collaboration holistically. Each collaboration effort must begin with its clearly-defined purpose, as we have outlined in the Four Ps of Effective Collaboration: Purpose, People, Process and Place. Neither the categorization by process type, nor the classification of back-end and front-end addresses the parameters of effective collaboration adequately. Once the purpose of the effort is defined, one can assess the level of collaboration – scope and intensity - necessary to achieve its goals. The value of collaboration must be significant and decisive.
Here are some reasons for collaboration:
- Multi-disciplinary Nature: Nature of the effort is such that no one person has the expertise, skills and abilities to achieve the desired goals and outcomes
- Innovation: Brining in others to inject different point-of-view, including people from other departments, vendors, partners and customers
- Problem solving: Similar to items above, depending on the problem on hand
- Bandwidth: Divide and conquer due to time constraints
- Learning & growth: Learning by doing, while furthering the goals of the effort
- Sounding board/on-going feedback: Bringing in others to bounce ideas; for example, testing the feasibility of a product idea with engineering or manufacturing, or with customers, and leaning about options
- And, so on.
Even in appropriate collaborative efforts, intensity and scope of collaboration would vary throughout the effort. There would be solo-work augmenting the collaborative effort.
Note that a debate is raging over whether collaboration is the right approach for ideas-generation. A recent article, Idea Generation and the Quality of the Best Idea, published in the INFORMS journal Management Science, suggests that collaboration might not be as effective as some individual work for the generation and selection of a few high quality ideas. In addition, the number of ideas generated is higher when individuals work by themselves, and the average quality of ideas is no different between individual and team processes.
And, here is the Collaboration Trap:
- 42 - the "Answer Trap": Collaboration is the answer, what is the question? Regardless of the purpose of the effort, collaboration is chosen a priori as the approach. Morten Hansen warns of “over collaboration” in his book Collaboration. In interviews, Hansen uses the example of Sony vs Apple for portable media player. Sony has had the culture of inclusivity: everything-by-committee. In contrast, Apple uses collaboration based on purpose and needs. Even after years, Sony has yet to recover from the Apple assault.
- “Technology Trap”: Becoming so enamored with what the tools and technology can potentially do for collaboration that collaboration becomes secondary to tools. Tools are necessary but they are only one part of collaboration. Tools are the enablers. When tools drive collaboration, watch out!
- "Accountability Trap": Having enough people involved to share the blame, should the collaboration effort fail or fall short of its goals. Effectively, the purpose of collaboration is secondary to CYA!
For those not familiar with 42, it comes from a science fiction book, the Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy. A computer named Hal takes many years to come up with the answer to a problem it was assigned, and the answer is 42. By the time Hal produces the answer, no one knows what the question was.
In an earlier post, we addressed the issue of Measuring Collaboration. We do not measure the “amount” of collaboration; we measure collaboration “effectiveness” by it outcomes, namely: deliverables, timelines and budget. We also opined that Effective Collaboration Is More than Deliverables, in that effective collaboration efforts go beyond their desired outcomes and leave an imprint on the organization and people, which in turn propels the mindset and culture of collaboration.
What are your ideas on when collaboration is the effective approach and when we encounter the “Collaboration Trap”?
Lokesh Datta
I came across a post by Stephen E Arnold that is directly related to this topic: Now It Is the Collaborative Enterprise. Three downsides of collaboration, according to Stephen, are:
- Creating false confidence about value and accuracy
- Using collaboration as a short-cut, thereby reducing effectiveness, and
- "collaboration" may not be required in all situations.
Lokesh Datta
Dilbert to the rescue, on “Collaboration Trap”!
"Few things in life are less efficient than a group of people trying to write a sentence. The advantage of this method is that you end up with something for which you will not be personally blamed." - Scott Adams
I would encourage you to look at some top collaboration quotes in the context of current state of collaboration.
Lokesh Datta
See Related Posts:
- Mind the “Collaboration Gap"
- Effective Collaboration Is More than Deliverables
- Collaboration: Building and Sustaining Trust
- The ALL ONE (TAO) of Collaboration
- The Four Ps of Effective Collaboration
- The 4Ps of Effective Collaboration - Redux
- Collaboration Is More than Team Building and Management
- Get Teammates to Move "Towards" Rather than "Away"
Lokesh Datta
A “curation” of this post recently appeared on the SharedVisions blog, which generated an insightful and interesting discussion in which commentors share real-life experiences, opinions and guidance.
Here is the curator’s framing of our post:
- An answer trap. Stated another way: sometimes collaboration (or virtual work tools) are a solution looking for a problem.
- A technology trap. We know of great software we like to use, so we always use it. Sometimes there is a simply way to get work done with minimal technology and that is the way to go.
- An accountability trap. Perhaps I’d say this differently from the original post; sometimes when too many people are working together, the final product is too bland, too general, and not quite good enough. Sometimes a great outcomes takes a dynamic individual who will do insightful work—or just get it done.
Reader Comments (7)
True, collaboration can be a tricky process. But I think the tools are there to help the whole process go smoothly. I don't really understand how you can actually fall into the "technology trap".
But overall, great post! I enjoyed reading it, and retweeted it :)
Fabrice,
Thank you for your comments and retweet!
I am in complete agreement when you say, “I think the tools are there to help the whole process go smoothly.” Tools are indeed the enabler. In mentioning the technology trap, I was not very clear. Effectively, it is about collaboration tools getting in the way of collaboration.
Perhaps it is helpful to see how we can avoid the technology trap.
* Select right tools for effort on-hand: As the saying goes, pick the right horse for the course! Understand: i) How will the team conduct its interactions? ii) What is the mix of real-time meetings (physical, phone, or web) versus non-real-time interactions (message boards, wikis, email exchanges, etc.)? iii) How might the mix of interactions or "place" change over the course of the collaboration project -- perhaps kicking off with more direct contact, separating into more virtual interactions, then coming back together with direct contact to converge on the solution? Iv) Collaboration tools can be effective to help a team work together, but only in the broader context of "place" and how the team members will interact. Select the tools that address the team needs.
* Keep it simple on tools: This does not need much explanation. I would however like to remember Einstein at this time: Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler! A collaboration tool must not get in the way of collaboration.
* Ensure training and comfort with use of tools: Collaborators should be comfortable with using the selected tools, or else they could create detours around them. This can multiply complexity and can in fact derail the effort.
* Lead through tools and enforce discipline: Leader must lead through tools. If and when a team member does not use the right tool, address and remedy the situation promptly. There could be many reasons for not using the tool appropriately; for example, hesitation in editing the work of a superior which all others can see, lack or training or comfort with the tool, just a feeling – right or wrong – that the tool is not effective and is getting in the way of productive collaboration, and so on.
Regard, Lokesh
The computer in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was "Deep Thought" and it was asked to find the "Answer to the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything".
Thank you Susan soooooo much! I read the book so long ago and did not watch the movie. I appreciate your insightful corrections!
Many thanks, Lokesh
I posted this question on LinkedIn: If collaboration is the answer, what is the question? When collaboration becomes the goal unto itself, I refer to this as the “Collaboration Trap.”
Here are some responses.
----------------------------------
Adrian Matadeen, Fatz Express Packaging Services Limited
The question in the collaborative process is that itself , Who ,what , Why , when , Where? Why are we here , what is it you want out of this , when is it you called it quits etc.
----------------------------------
Paul Oldfield, Software Consultant, People and Process Engineer, Lean, Agile and RUP at Capgemini
Good question. I abhor the term "Best Practice". It implies that we should just do something, don't think about why you should be doing it. Sure, we should all be collaborating, but for a purpose, to solve problems when collaboration is a good way to solve the problem.
There are a few ways I use collaboration to solve problems. Its chief benefit, to my mind, is in knowledge transfer. By working together, knowledge of a piece of work is transferred, as the work is being done, from the person 'upstream' in the process stream to the person who will take the work on downstream. In doing this, the collaborators also learn a bit about each other's work and concerns as they do the work, and begin to pick up the skills needed to do the other person's work and thus become more flexible and more able to adapt and clear any bottlenecks that arise.
Collaboration also helps develop a sense of working as a team, and enhances the ability of the team to deal with problems for themselves rather than relying on the manager to micro-manage the work and fix all problems. Probably most important of all, by using collaboration I need far less documentation of intermediate stages of development. This works for me and my teams when following development processes; the benefits might not transfer to other types of process.
----------------------------------
Kenneth Larson, Retired Aerospace Contracts Manager, SCORE Volunteer Counselor and Founder, "Small to Feds"
Collaboration in the massive US federal government contracting market is an absolute necessity, driven by the tendency of agencies to "Bundle" supplies and services procurements.
Synergism is paramount in teaming with any size company, whether in a lead or subcontracting role. There should be technical, management and market segment similarities between you and any company with whom you are considering teaming.
Your prospective team member ideally will not be a direct competitor; rather in a business in a related field with whom you share a mutual need for each others contributions in pursuing large-scale projects.
----------------------------------
Brian Longley, Facilitator, coach, healthcare and technology commercialisation, business development and management consultant.
If a business sees collaboration as a trap. The chances are high that the said business would be trapped regardless of any relationships/interactions.
----------------------------------
Lou Storiale, PMP, CSM, Marketing Strategies That Work
Collaboration is one of the things I try to create whenever I'm working with a new client or company. The purpose of collaboration is to communicate ideas and learn - in order to:
That is the thing that is missing. Find out what the "In order to" is and you'll have your question.
Remember, you're always looking for an "in order to"
The answer to 90% of all questions is MONEY.
In order to be more efficient so you make or save money
In order to get the scope of a project correct so you eliminate re-work and save money
In order to increase revenue - to make more money
In order to decrease cost or time (which leads to saving money)
Collaboration should be used when it will satisfy the end-game, to make or save more money. If it will not accomplish that, then you are "collaborating as a goal unto itself."
Your examples in your blog post/article can be related to my answer
- Multi-disciplinary Nature: Nature of the effort is such that no one person has the expertise, skills and abilities to achieve the desired goals and outcomes. So we need people with specialized skills to get all the information possible in order to - get the job, get the contract, determine best strategy in order to save or make money.
- Innovation: Bringing in others to inject different point-of-view, including people from other departments, vendors, partners and customers in order to be creative so that we get the job, become efficient, provide better solutions (save or make money)
- Problem solving: Similar to items above, depending on the problem on hand in order to save money that the problem is costing us or solve a problem that will create an opportunity which will lead to making more money.
- Learning & growth: Learning by doing, while furthering the goals of the effort in order to make staff more knowledgeable so they are more efficient and can save or make more money.
Your scenario in your article about the bandwidth problem and the tech person calling his support team to get answers; he would benefit from Proactive collaboration because he would have the answers and be more efficient, could complete each task quicker and this would save money. If he charged a fee, he could visit two or three more customers in a day and that would make them more money.
The answer to 90% of all questions is money. When you begin looking at things this way, it becomes even more apparent what the question should be.
Cheers,
Lou Storiale
http://www.storiale.com
----------------------------------
Mark Phillips, Principal, Vertabase Project Management Software
How do you give people the information they need to make good decisions?
----------------------------------
Christine Hueber
How to achieve results that depend on the engagement of others?
As many of you know, we have a companion LinkedIn discussion group, All Collaboration, at: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2389931. I posted the following for discussion:
If collaboration is the answer, what is the question? When collaboration becomes the goal unto itself, I refer to this as the “Collaboration Trap.” I have outlined my thoughts of this challenging issue at: http://allcollaboration.com/home/2010/5/10/mind-the-collaboration-trap.html.
I would like to share the discussion.
----------------------------------
Kjetil Kristensen, Collaboration Strategist
Great insight, and I fully agree. All too often solutions are prescribed without a proper understanding of the underlying problems. This is like playing ”Jeopardy” - and I see a lot of organizations doing this - they know the answer, and then go looking for problems that fit the solution. Needless to say, it should be the other way around, but reversing this common error does not happen by itself – this is largely due to the inherent structural imbalance (asymmetry) in power between a well-organised, streamlined supply side and a weak demand side.
The supply side typically focuses on volume rather than quality and often keeps delivering packaged solutions similar to previous projects, because this standardization minimizes their risk and maximises their profits. This is their core business; they make a living doing this. Compared to the supply side, the demand side is less streamlined, and many representatives find themselves in unfamiliar territory, as being involved in such projects deviate much from their normal day to day activities. Systematically strengthening the user side and the user project could help addressing some of these problems.
I covered some related aspects in the following blog post:
http://www.collaborationperspectives.com/2009/08/12-theses-on-collaboration.html
----------------------------------
Guy Benchimol, Technical writer
Well seen, Kjetil!
What you say is verified in any big firm: of course, they have the advantage of big means but you can say that, if they are most of time efficient -because they use all kinds of reporting rules and metrics-, you may wonder whether they are truly effective.
Indeed, collaboration is generally negated from the beginning: they are framed around formal org charts and incentives in which jobs, tasks, stiff rules and quantitative outputs prevail upon roles, needs, qualitative results, goals and human relationships.
Of course, you do not always perceive this state of mind for it depends on your situation relatively to the organization and that PR are aiming to depict the context more favourably (in this case, collaboration is just an answer -to social requirements for instance) but ignores the very question: "How to work better together and solve the problems -namely transversal ones-?"
----------------------------------
Kjetil Kristensen, Collaboration Strategist
Well put indeed, Guy - most organizations take effectiveness for granted; they believe their processes produce the desired outputs - but at a non-competitive pace - so they end up focusing on improving efficiency.
I believe this assumption is fundamentally wrong - working on improving efficiency alone in my experience produce marginal results at best, and it only works in a short-term perspective. Luckily for the companies doing this, most of their competitors are doing the exact same thing, so it doesn't put them out of business. Still, however, recent research (McKinsey) demonstrates that not only are the most knowledge-intensive companies also the most collaboration-intensive ones, but the performance gap between the top and the bottom performers are nine (9!) times higher in the most knowledge-intensive sectors compared to traditional sectors. So, clearly, some companies are getting it right.
I posted this question on LinkedIn: If collaboration is the answer, what is the question? Don't say 42!
I received interesting responses that I would like to share.
----------------------------------
Bernard Gore, Senior Project Manager (contract) at ACC
Collaboration is the question, not the answer.
Evolution has driven us to be a naturally collaborative species. The question is how we make sure this remains effective in an environment vastly different to the one we evolved in!
----------------------------------
Barrett Peterson, CPA, Consultant and Senior Financial Executive, experienced in Accounting, Finance, Planning, IT, M&A, Operations Mgmt.
One question [the cynical] might be how to spend lots of time, perhaps some of it productive. The counter is how to maximize the skills of a group.
----------------------------------
Cleopatra Fitzgerald, Political Organization Professional
Collaboration might be the answer to many resolutions.
It brings about unison and interactivity.
The four p's of effective collaboration: "purpose, people, process, place."
The "Collaboration Trap" is a play on words and ideas.
If collaboration is the answer, the question could involve any of these logical suggestions:
How will the world resolve its differences?
How will there be a cure for so many ills?
How will the event take place?
Organizational Development and Corporate Governance work with?
Collaboration: How to do it?
----------------------------------
DAVE MASKIN, Trade Show Booth Traffic Builder, WireNames.com
"How can the Human Race ever get along on a worldwide level?
The answer is, collaboration... :<)
If that doesn't work, the question is absolutely 42... :<)
----------------------------------
Ben Robson, Director of Operations at IPSec Pty Ltd
I would say that the question is: what are you trying to achieve?
Collaboration is a method by which you determine the solution to the outcome you are attempting to achieve. Collaboration for collaboration's sake is just a mothers-club-meeting that serves little useful purpose than otherwise being a social event.
Collaboration is about collecting together a group of people with expertise valuable to the solution development process looking to solve a particular problem or provide a particular outcome.
So collaboration is not even really the answer, its more like the method by which an answer can be found.
----------------------------------
Cristina Falcão, Creative Problem Solver - I DO IT - Pharmaceutical Manager - Change Management
How does a team improve resources and reward when facing competition?
----------------------------------
Sushil Sharma, "Unconscious - The Real Life"
According to me- What would you prefer (one word answer) Collaboration or Dissociation?
----------------------------------
Wallace Jackson, Multimedia Producer & i3D Programmer for Acrobat3D PDF, Android Mobile Apps, Virtual Worlds, iTV Design, JavaFX & JavaTV
If collaboration is the answer, the question is: How do companies succeed as a whole?
----------------------------------
Melanie Kittrell, Experienced Pharma Commercial Executive
I think the question is "How can you significantly enhance a company's productivity and create and speed innovative offerings to the market?"
----------------------------------
Svilen Dobrev, Software maker and advisor
the Long Handled Spoons story?
but it is AN answer, not THE answer.
Nothing is THE answer.