| Making Collaboration Work
By David Straus and David Coleman
David Straus has spent the last 30+ years looking at collaboration.
From graduate training in architecture at the Harvard School of
Design in 1965 and the founding of Interaction Associates in 1969,
David has watched the field of collaboration mature over the last
3-4 decades. I had the chance to interview David recently about
his greatest insights into collaboration as well as his greatest
challenges… David Coleman
Coleman: Why do you see "collaboration"
as such a powerful idea?
Straus: First there is what
we call "the Interaction Effect." This is the release
of energy when a group or organization gets alignment in three areas:
direction, commitment and capability. The synergy created is way
beyond what you would expect and it is amazing to see. Power comes
from inclusion and alignment of stakeholders; furthermore, it is
also the right thing to do. Stakeholders need to have a say in decisions
that effect their lives.
Coleman: Can you give me an
example of when and where you saw this effect first occur?
Straus: My own company, Interaction
Associates (IA), has been the best learning and action-research
environment. I experienced the power of collaborative action in
some of our early collaborative meetings planning the direction
of our work.
Coleman: Any other reasons you
see collaboration as so powerful?
Straus: There seems to be both
statistical and anecdotal evidence that collaborative organizations
perform better than the traditional hierarchies found in most companies
today. Dr. Daniel Dennison at the University of Michigan tested
1200 companies on how well they did on four cultural traits: Mission,
Involvement, Adaptability, and Consistency. These four traits do
a good job in describing a collaborative culture, and collaborative
actions must be present to score high in all four dimensions. Denison
found that companies that were high performers (i.e. an ROI of 30%
or higher) all scored well on these attributes as compared to companies
that scored low (ROI of 9%).
Coleman: What was your greatest
insight over the last 30 + years around collaboration?
Straus: Well, three big "ah-ha’s"
come to mind. My first insight was really about the heuristic nature
of human problem solving. Some of this is based on the work of Newell
and Simon who proved that there is no one right way to solve most
problems – no algorithms, but that most human problem solving is
a trial-and-error process utilizing a repertoire of strategies that
may move you towards a solution. The second insight was the concept
of a facilitator. The facilitator was at the time a new kind of
third party role (different from a mediator or arbitrator) who serves
as a neutral process guide and tool giver in the group problem solving
meetings. The third insight was that you can involve large numbers
of people in a collaborative problem solving process, and that you
visualize and plan these efforts through process mapping.
Coleman: In your book "How
to Make Collaboration Work" you talk about the importance
of involving stakeholders. But how do you find all of the
stakeholders? Some are apparent, but many are not, and you can't
have everyone in a meeting at the same time, it would get unwieldy
very quickly?
Straus: Let me answer the first
part of your question on how do you find stakeholders? Initially,
some of the stakeholders may not be obvious. Find the ones you can
and begin to design the process collaboratively (see Figure 1 for
an example of a Process Map). If this process is open and visible,
the less obvious stakeholders will find you, and you can then include
them in the process.
It is kind of a Zen thing: sometimes
you have to "go slow to go fast." Stay in the process
design phase and ensure buy-in from all the stakeholders before
actually beginning to tackle the problem. And then work for agreement
on a definition of the problem before jumping to solutions.
Figure 1-
Example Process Map
Large numbers of people can
be involved in collaborative problem solving through concentric
rings of involvement (see Figure 2).
Figure 2-
Rings of Involvement
There is a natural use for collaborative
technologies here. The core group could have their own virtual workspace.
The next level out, task forces, could have an overview to that
workspace like a dashboard that graphically would summarize for
them progress or issues. The third ring out "input or feedback
meetings, can make use of threaded discussion technologies for asynchronous
interactions and also make use of some of the newer web conferencing
technologies to hold a same time different place meeting to get
input from a larger group. Finally, the Web can be used for the
fourth level, communications and outreach in a number of different
ways.
What is important at all levels
of involvement is that there are clear checkpoints for people to
give their approval and input.
Coleman: At
CS we talk about the 3 factors for creating collaborative value:
content, context and process, or another way we express this is
"people, process and technology are all needed to create collaborative
value. Can you comment on this?
Straus: I agree, there is a
good mapping between your three factors and the three factors for
creating collaborative value that we see, which are: results, process
and relationship. "Results" maps to you "content",
"relationships", the affective emotional interactions
between people, maps to your "context", and "process"
seems to mean the same for both of us.
Coleman: Why is building consensus
so important? Often consensus is hard to reach, takes longer
to do, and the group does not always make the best decisions?
Straus: We define consensus
as everyone being able to live with the results and solutions, which
does not always mean everyone thinks the solution is optimal. Also,
you always need a fallback, because you can’t always count on consensus
(see Figure 3). As a collaborative leader it is sometimes appropriate
to make a quick decision, or involve people in a 1-to-1 interaction.
The real challenge of leadership is using the right decision making
method at the right time!
Figure 3-
Levels of Involvement in Decision Making
Coleman: Collaborative technologies,
when applied to an organization, have the potential to change the
lines of communication and ultimately the organizational structure.
Have you seen this happen? What happened, and how did it turn
out?
Straus: Yes, collaboration does
change the organizational structure. I see it as a kind of dynamic
holographic model. Hierarchical organizational structures are static
and not very appropriate for the dynamic times we live in. A collaborative
organizational structure is much more fluid and adaptable, with
many overlapping teams. To understand lines of authority, you have
to specify an issue and point of time.
Coleman: In your book "How
to make Collaboration Work" most of the work was done with "in
person" facilitators, but today, with travel budgets cut to the
bone, there is probably more virtual facilitation going on. How
is this different from in-person facilitation, and what are some
of the limitations or advantages of this type of group facilitation?
Straus: I see virtual facilitation
as a real growth area. In electronic facilitation, at the strategic
level, the same kinds of interventions and preventions apply. The
question is how to operationalize these strategies utilizing a specific
technology. Lisa Kimball from Group Jazz has done some of the best
thinking about virtual facilitation. Unfortunately, there are very
few people like you, with a foot in both worlds, because they are
sorely needed to help with this translation.
One of the biggest limitations
of the technology that we have seen is the limited display space.
One of the best solutions I have seen for this is at Apple, in their
demo/video room, where all the walls are displays and you get a
light pen to write on them.
I often think that these virtual
facilitation tools should be two-tier systems, a more powerful system
with more functionality for the facilitator, and a second, simpler
tier of functionality for the participants. It is really important
to have systems that can be used and owned by participants.
Coleman: Can you tell us about
the saga of collaboration technologies at IA (Interaction Associates)?
What collaboration tools are being used today, internally and to
support facilitation with your clients?
Straus: IA has been somewhat
technologically resistant in the past. Which as we have said is
not unusual for people that focus on process and relationships.
We have only seen uptake of collaborative tools internally when
our people see the tools can directly benefit them and there is
not too much of a learning curve. Today we have Lotus Notes and
are in the process of upgrading to Notes 6 as our main collaborative
tool, and recently we have added SalesNet software for contact and
relationship management. We also have a great KM system in Notes,
but Notes is most often used for e-mail and calendaring.
We have also introduced Treo’s
(PDA/phones) as a way to make our people more mobile, but to still
have the ability to collaborate. We use tools like WebEx for distance
presentations to clients, and even for internal meetings, and find
the recording feature very valuable. For process mapping we use
Microsoft’s Visio, and we still sometimes use keypad tools for voting
and balloting like OptionFinder.
I think the collaborative vendors
have made a big mistake by not using intermediaries, such as CS
or IA to showcase their technologies. I would think they would want
to have high-end management consultants, beta testing their software
and helping to get it into clients. IA, with a large client base
that is open to collaboration is clearly in a good place to do this.
Coleman: Currently, CS is doing
research on critical factors for enterprise adoption of collaborative
technologies. We have started to find some interesting results.
What advice would you give to vendors of collaborative technologies
with your vast experience with end-user organizations?
Straus: Collaborative vendors
need to demonstrate the power of their technology and then to be
able to transfer the skills. The mistake the vendor is making is
that they are not seeing the "process and relationship people"
as a natural intermediary and co-developer for these technologies.
WebEx does not see the management and OD consultants as natural
partners. Many of the vendors do not offer a complete solution today
and they need process skills to make adoption more effective in
the enterprise. Collaboration technologies are a magnifier. They
can make things (much) worse or (much) better depending on how and
where they are applied in the organization. But, the sale of these
technologies is easy once people see the benefits.
Coleman: What do you think the
biggest challenges to collaboration are today?
Straus: I Believe the challenge
is scaling up collaboration from a one-time event to a normal way
of doing business and to institutionalize these behaviors in whole
organization or community.
David Straus is the founder
and former chairperson of Interaction Associates (IA) (www.interactionassociates.com).
He is the author of How to Make Collaboration Work, published by
Berrett-Koehler in 2002. David can be reached at: dstraus@interactionassociates.com.
David Coleman is the Founder
and Managing Director of Collaborative Strategies (CS), and the
editor of the "Inside Collaboration" newsletter. He is
the author of two books on groupware, and writes the "Guru's
Corner" column for the newsletter. He can be reached at davidc@collaborate.com
or 415-282-9197.
|
