In a recent article in The Economist, the promise of collaboration was highlighted through several real world examples. Companies such as Apple, through coordinated and deliberate collaboration drive innovation and increase profits, market share and brand recognition. But the article also points out the challenges of collaboration, and the risks associated with it. Huh - risks? That's right - risks. Too often marketeers from software and services companies flood the market with the promise of collaboration - whether it is called that or knowledge management, innovation management, enterprise 2.0, web 2.0, or of course the "elephant in the room" SharePoint. Sure collaboration is GREAT - so just "do it" with the help of "my" product or integration service and you will reap all the benefits.
What the hype leaves out, the article does not. The article offers a balanced look at collaboration as the business mantra du jour, through a practical, bottom-line eye. (I guess that is why it was in The Economist and not ComputerWorld.)
My favorite quote from the article: "But dismantling internal barriers to co-operation is a tricky business that requires much more than smart software. " Tricky business - indeed. More than smart software - of yeah. In fact ignoring this fact was nearly the demise of the KM movement.
I have said it before, and I will say it again, collaboration (aka knowledge management, innovation management, enterprise 2.0) done right requires a carefully developed strategy that coordinates and aligns fundamental business goals and objectives, corporate culture, business processes and technology. Get that wrong, and I do not care how good your technology implementation is, your initiative will fail.
The article points out that by focusing on collaboration as the ultimate goal, other business opportunities are potentially missed, and/or the cost (read money spent on achieving collaboration) outweigh the benefits received. In these cases the business goals and objectives were ignored - rendering the collaboration strategy out of whack.
The article also points out: "These informal networks, and software platforms such as Lockheed’s Unity project, can help lay the ground for more collaboration. But they cannot resolve deeper problems, such as resistance to change at the top." How true - a perfect example of a collaboration strategy that does not take into account corporate culture. I recall one organization I worked with for whom this was a major issue. After under going an intensive review by yours truly, a proposed KM strategy was presented. The implementation plan indicated that corporate culture was a major impediment to KM/collaboration, and needed to be addressed first and foremost. Despite all the internal marketing to the contrary, members of the organization harbored a basic distrust of each other. Worth was (informally) measured by what you knew and others did not. More importantly, workers were not blind to the fact that despite the corporate call for collaboration, the 4 VPs were nonetheless adversarial and vied for the CEOs attention and budget. Bottom line in this case, you can build and fund this KM project all you want - I am not going to collaborate without trepidation. When this was pointed out, management took it "under advisement". They went ahead and funded an elaborate technology approach to expertise location and collaboration. The KM project died, and the blame was placed on the technology.
Whats funny is that the story I just shared took place over 10 years ago. Will we ever learn? We place new labels on the issue (it's not KM anymore, now its collaboration), new products emerge (SharePoint: "it does everything"), and all too often forget the lessons of the past. We believe that the "new focus" and/or the new product will deliver on the promise without requiring any strategy.
Sure, when technology comes into the mix, you need a technology strategy (i.e. do I implement collaboration in SaaS? If I use SharePoint do I embrace all six pillars of functionality?). But - you also need a business strategy - a carefully thought out orchestration across business goals and objectives, corporate culture, processes and technology.
