{"id":231,"date":"2018-06-07T10:16:23","date_gmt":"2018-06-07T09:16:23","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.boulden.net\/blog\/?p=231"},"modified":"2021-11-25T12:32:17","modified_gmt":"2021-11-25T12:32:17","slug":"collaborative-working-none-of-us-is-as-smart-as-all-of-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.boulden.net\/blog\/collaborative-working-none-of-us-is-as-smart-as-all-of-us\/","title":{"rendered":"Collaborative Working – None of us is as smart as all of us!"},"content":{"rendered":"
\u201cWe must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.\u201d
\nBenjamin Franklin<\/h6>\n
\"collaborative<\/figure>\n

Collaborating, between both external partners and also internal teams, is a key competency for successful organisations. But it goes wrong at least as often as it goes right, sometimes with horrible consequences.<\/p>\n

Take, for example, the case of the 2007 joint venture between Swiss watch manufacture Swatch and the high-end jewellery retailer Tiffany. The aim of the collaboration was for Swatch to manufacture Tiffany branded watches that Tiffany would sell through its distribution outlets. All went well until 2011 when Tiffany decided that the watches were no longer a priority for their business and (according to Swatch) started dragging its feet on making decisions; it also stopped displaying the watches at its flagship 5th Avenue store in New York. The relationship soured and in 2013 Swatch was awarded, through an arbitration action, $449 million in compensation.<\/p>\n

So, one thing this story tells us about good collaboration is the need to consider the issue of Residual Control i.e. if something unexpected happens, or circumstances alter, who can initiate a change? E.g. is there a specific \u2018break clause\u2019 in the collaboration agreement, or an option for mediation? But, of course, there\u2019s much more to building an effective collaboration than having an \u2018escape hatch\u2019 built into the agreement.<\/p>\n

<\/i><\/a>Defining collaboration…<\/h2>\n

Let\u2019s start with a formal definition… Collaborative Working is defined as:
\n\u2018People working jointly on an activity or project to achieve a common goal. Especially where this involves co-operation between a number of teams, departments and\/or different organisations to achieve an agreed objective.\u2019<\/em>
\nIt comes from the Latin, \u2018collaborare\u2019, meaning \u2018to work with.\u2019<\/p>\n

<\/i><\/a>Do the stars align?<\/h2>\n

Clearly a key part of this definition is the need for a \u2018common goal\u2019. So the starting point for collaboration to work is that there must be a clear and explicitly stated common interest and an agreed \u2018vision\u2019 for what is to be achieved. There must also be good quality goals and concrete measures of success. This clarity of purpose plus clear success criteria is the basis for all the other aspects that need to be in place for collaboration to work.<\/p>\n

Naturally that common purpose needs to be genuine and sincerely felt by all involved if good results are to be achieved. Sometimes collaboration occurs for public relations reasons, with one or more of the parties just going through the motions, regarding the collaboration as their \u2018least worst option\u2019. In these cases, one of the \u2018players\u2019 secretly hope it will fail, stall, or be abandoned. All the while they seem to be collaborating they are actually looking for reasons to pull out while, on the surface of things, acting in a reasonable manner. The main message here is that it\u2019s counterproductive to pressure people into a collaboration \u2013 as they usually have more ways of sabotaging things than you have ways of getting them to behave! Thus, a key stage in the collaborative process is to check that all the parties are fully invested in a successful outcome.<\/p>\n

On a related point, as we\u2019ve seen above, it\u2019s also vital to make sure there is a mechanism to handle situations were those common interests, once genuinely in sync, for some reason start to diverge. (The issue of \u2018residual control\u2019.) So, I don\u2019t suppose many people who are about to get married have the idea in their heads that things will end in divorce but anyone who\u2019s rich and\/or famous makes sure they\u2019ve got the prenuptial agreement in place before they tie the knot.<\/p>\n

<\/i><\/a>You say potato, I say potata \u2013 let\u2019s call the whole thing off<\/h2>\n

Common interests provide the rationale for the collaboration but alignment of organisational culture is the key driver of success. As the old saying goes, \u2018culture eats strategy for breakfast\u2019. So part of having a good alignment is that there are no cultural barriers that might block effective working; or if they are there then they are dealt with.<\/p>\n

For example, take the case of the World Wide Fund for nature working with Plus Group (an organisation that certifies forestry management procedures as environmentally sound for products sold by its commercial members e.g. Boots, Sainsbury\u2019s, Body Shop etc.) Unsurprisingly the WWF\u2019s focus was primarily on protecting the environment, while Plus Group goals related to satisfying the business interests of its members e.g. getting cost reductions. Plus Group consequently felt that the WFF people were often \u2018unable to appreciate commercial pressures\u2019. The way these tensions were resolved was through \u2018cultural mediators\u2019. Essentially the WWF Project Managers built personal networks and \u2018alliances\u2019 that enabled them to act as bridges between the environmentalist culture and that of the commercial companies that made up the Plus Group membership. They worked to get a shared vocabulary and frame of reference established such that mutual respect could be established and trust built. So, when contemplating a collaboration, it\u2019s worth thinking about who is going to provide that \u2018cultural mediation\u2019.<\/p>\n

<\/i><\/a>The importance of a \u2018collaboration strategy\u2019<\/h2>\n

The UK\u2019s National Audit Office has commissioned research into Collaborative Working relationships and how they can drive successful programmes. The research looked at nine collaborative projects involving major companies such as BP, AMEC, and Babcock. All the collaborations were between two separate organisations (not internal collaborations) and identified (unsurprisingly) the need for a clear Vision. They also noted the importance of:<\/p>\n