A number of years ago, I worked for an international corporation at one of its large facilities. As the local head of training and development, my role was to help the process managers improve productivity through the growth of the workforce.

Photo credit: Alfonso Romero
One item on the agenda at the time was to develop a team-based operations workforce.

After a couple of years of watching what was going on and making a marginal contribution, I finally asked the question of the facility manager, "do you want teams or teamwork?".

His answer was "work teams".

Fast forward a decade or so, and I have a similar question....

What kind of collaboration do we really want?

Is this collaboration an outcome or an activity?

Is it a strategy or a process?

What is the business case for doing collaboration or behaving collaboratively?

I am starting to take these on in some order, as I am not positive of what my personal view really is on these. I hope that some of my open reasoning here below can open up or facilitate new understanding about this critical business topic.

1. Is there a business case for collaboration?
I did a quick check on the definition, and the one I will use is "the act of working jointly". Given that definition, of course there is a business case, but what might it be?

• By working toward virtual integration, you are working toward a higher goal than your individual needs. That means, by definition, you optimize the whole instead of just your part.


• A network of small businesses can go to market with the apparent clout of a large venture if they show "one face" to the customer.


• While we would all like to think that going to market this way would create some "synergistic value", it is more likely that each unit will lower its short-term financial expectations to win the business. If any portion of the venture fails to "play fair", we could easily have a tragedy of the commons.

2. Is collaboration a strategy or a process?

In my own model, the Big Arrow, I promote the idea that strategy is directional and outcome-oriented, while process increases predictability of behavior and progress toward some goal. My retail and contracting company, Unique Environments, cannot fulfill its mission without a collaborative network. In our premium niche, our customer depends on us to provide one or more of the following:

• Exclusivity
  This is not easy to accomplish, but there are some
  suppliers who do not want to appear in Wal-Mart and some people who want
  exactly what they want. This plus a design-to-order philosophy allows us to offer exclusivity without getting overwhelmed, when it works.


• Reduced complexity and ambiguity
  When we are credible with our client, she is more likely to focus on the outcome, and less likely to focus on our processes. We understand the complexity (or lack thereof) of what we are doing, and would prefer to keep that under our control.


• Value
  We network our processes and backward integrate to our suppliers. This brings our customer at least one step closer to the producer for a range of products. We can choose to pass on savings (long term) to promote referrals or increase the order-line profit (short term).


• Control
  Similar to #2 above, except that here we refer to managing the behavior of subcontractors and colleagues. Unfortunately, not all people in our world see the customer the same way we do. We still have to work with these people and separate the value they bring from the value they don't.

3. It is probably more accurate to view collaboration more of an activity than outcome.

Why?

Collaboration can happen without adding real value, and that potential probably reduces the number of potential partners.

Who is interested in collaboration that doesn't create business value? That is different from networking, which to me always has some value.

4. If collaboration were an outcome, would that suggest a structure that promotes or inhibits collaboration?

Or is there a collaboration organization structure that could serve as a template?

1. Strategic collaboration will happen best where in the hierarchy sales and operations come together. That is also where communication tends to break down.


2. It is how, in that sales/operations interface, the each of the processes interact independently and interdependently. That is also where the parts tend to suboptimize the whole.


3. The structures that naturally promote collaboration will have the most interfaces between operating units. These structures look more like matrices, but again, the processes behind the structure are far more important than the organization chart.


4. So I guess my answer would be that structure aside, the processes behind structure are what matters in the world of collaboration.

My purpose in this personal post, was to crystallize a few thoughts on collaboration and organization and link it to the strategic framework of the organization.

Does it belong there?

I think so, but communicating that opportunity and getting more than weak acknowledgement will take some doing.

Thoughts?

Ray Symmes -- Image5 LLC