MEASURING COLLABORATIVE PERFORMANCE
- Due Diligence for Enterprise 2.0
Dr. Kjetil Kristensen Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 Frankfurt am Main - 11 November 2009

Outline
Quick introduction: Collaboration - the big picture
Characteristics and challenges
Collaborative performance
Common misconceptions
Suggested approaches
Measuring impacts: Due diligence for Enterprise 2.0
Collaboration inventory; diagnostics tools and techniques
Success factors for realizing benefits
Final reflections
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 2

Collaboration – Opening Statement
“Firms come into being in order to enable human
beings to achieve collaboratively what they could not
achieve alone. If one accepts this as the true purpose
of any organization, then the main focus of
executives’ attention should be on how to foster
collaboration within their companies”
Hansen & Nohria, MIT MR 2004
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 3

The Big Picture
“The only thing that gives an organization a competitive
edge… is what it knows, how it uses what it knows, and
how fast it can know something new”
Laurence Prusak, IBM
“If only HP knew what HP knows, we would be three times
as profitable”
Lew Platt, former HP CEO
The majority of work is collaborative
Knowledge: 60-80 % of our time is spent on interactions
Trend: Portion of interactions growing [Gartner, McKinsey]
Technology plays an increasingly important role
Reducing the cost of interactions
Making it easier to find relevant knowledge and experts
New perspectives on knowledge and competitiveness
Possible to achieve a quantum leap in productivity
The million dollar question is – how to do this?
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 4

Basic Performance Dimensions
I: Input
I:
O:
O:
Input
Output
Output
Effectiveness ( )
G:
G: Goal
Goal G
R:
R: Resources
I Activity O
(Ak)
R
Efficiency ( )
Source: O’Donnell and Duffy, 2001
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 5

Basic Performance Dimensions
I: Input
I:
O:
O:
Input
Output
Output
Effectiveness ( )
G:
G: Goal
Goal G
R:
R: Resources
I Activity O
(Ak)
R Make sure you
know what you
Efficiency ( ) want to achieve
Source: O’Donnell and Duffy, 2001
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 6

Basic Performance Dimensions
I: Input
I:
O:
O:
Input
Output
Output
Effectiveness ( )
G:
G: Goal
Goal G
R:
R: Resources
“There is nothing quite so useless as doing with
I Activity O
great efficiency(Ak) which should not be done at all.”
that
- Peter Drucker
R Make sure you
know what you
Efficiency ( ) want to achieve
Source: O’Donnell and Duffy, 2001
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 7

Knowledge Worker Requirements
I: Input
I:
O:
O:
Input
Output
Output
Effectiveness ( )
G:
G:
R:
Goal
Goal
Resources
G
R: Resources
I Activity O
(Ak)
Personal Workview Efficiency ( )
R
Activity Space Real Time Collaboration
Team Setup Knowledge Discovery
Management Overview
Based on the 6FP EU-project
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 8

Measuring Collaborative Performance
Future
Practice
Current
Practice
Costs Benefits
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 9

Measuring Collaborative Performance
Future Blurry
Practice Can be identified
Current Blurry Blurry
Practice
Can be identified Can be identified
Costs Benefits
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 10

Common Misconceptions
More collaboration is
always better
E 2.0 is primarily about
technology or efficiency
There are no success
stories
Knowledge work is
unmeasurable
Collaboration is so
ingrained in what we do
that its effects cannot be
separated from the rest Source: McKinsey, Compustat
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 11

Measuring Impacts: Due Diligence for E2.0
Measuring collaborative performance is about measuring
how collaboration contributes to objectives
Cause and effect relationship can be difficult to assess
That should not prevent us from trying
Preparatory work
Know the baseline; current problems and their related costs
Establish proper links; identify collaboration causalities
Collaborative strategies
• Objective(s)
• Scope (domain)
• Advantages
A collaboration inventory of approaches and methods are
outlined on the next slides
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 12

Collaboration Inventory - #1
Evaluate
Spot barriers Tailor
opportunities
to collaboration
for
collaboration solutions
collaboration
1.1 Upside calibration tool 2.1 The four barrier rating 3.1 The lever barometer
Benchmark data: 107 companies* Benchmark data: 107 companies* Benchmark data: 107 companies*
1.2 The collaboration matrix 2.2 Barrier-to-lever worksheet 3.2 The lever gap analysis
* Benchmark sample: 107 companies, 50-150 000 employees (mean = 11 076 employees)
Collaboration Premium Concept
Collaboration Return on Opportunity Collaboration
= - -
premium project cost cost
Source: Morten T. Hansen: Collaboration. Harvard Business Press, 2009.
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 13

Collaboration Inventory - #2
Success factors – Mattesich et. al.
Environment (3 factors)
Membership characteristics (4 factors)
Process and structure (6 factors)
Communication (2 factors)
Purpose (3 factors)
Resources (2 factors)
Most important success factors for collaboration identified
from 40 (18+22) out a total of 414 (133+281) studies
Wilder Collaboration Factors Inventory
A free online collaboration assessment
Source: Mattesich Murray-Close & Monsey, 2001
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 14

Collaboration Inventory - #3
ROC = ((functional area spend) * functional area change)
overall UC&C spend
Functional area spend = the total annual organizational revenues * the revenue
percentage spent on each functional area
Functional area change = the percent of improvement on each functional area
that the organization believes is attributable to deploying collaboration solutions
Overall UC&C spend = the total amount of money an organization spent to
deploy their collaboration solution set during a specified time period
Many other approaches exist, but
The application of these approaches depend on the context
If you need to measure and justify, define precise objectives
Know the baseline (current performance, costs and benefits)
Source: Frost & Sullivan, 2009
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 15

Example Perf. Measurement – Eng. Design
Determining the most productive way
of carrying out a set of eng. design tasks
4 different scenarios / platforms tested
Simple experiment with defined script
Measures
Subjective (S) and objective (O)
Intersubjctive (IS) and interobjective (IO)
Exterior measures (O/IO)
Clock
Wage plans
Checklists
Interior measures (S/IS)
Forms
Semantic differential
Forced ranking
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 16

Example Perf. Measurement – Results
Interobjective
Subjective
Objective
Useful results
Some hypotheses confirmed
Other hypotheses rejected
Factors & trade-offs in a dashboard format
Intersubjective Improved decision support
Industrial processes complex
But they can be broken down
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 17

Realizing Benefits: 12 Theses on Collaboration
1. Collaboration is an essential part of knowledge work.
2. The majority of work is collaborative.
3. Think, then act.
4. Collaboration requires disciplined management and leadership to succeed.
5. While important, technology is not enough.
6. Work practices should be systematically developed and reviewed.
7. Usability is too important to be left to the technology people alone.
8. The importance of awareness and training cannot be overstated.
9. Collaboration is inherently dynamic and should be treated accordingly.
10. Get your priorities right.
11. Find the sweet spots rather than using a forced approach.
12. Never forget that collaboration is about creating value.
Source: KC Blog – www.collaborationperspectives.com
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 18

Collaborative Performance – Final Reflections
Quick summary
We spend 60–80% of our work time on interactions and collaboration
Some approach collaboration strategically, others operationally
Both perspectives are required to build collaborative advantage
Know the baseline – otherwise asymmetries will kill your business case
Objective-driven approaches are more likely to succeed
Identify potential benefits and barriers before planning solutions
Reflect on what you are targeting – effectiveness or efficiency
Some final points
Justification is possible, but the process is time consuming
Methods often require business information that is not readily available
Operational collaboration objectives require clear strategic objectives
A justification exercise will increase the transparency of trade-offs
© Kristensen Consulting 2009 | Enterprise 2.0 SUMMIT 19

Kjetil Kristensen, PhD
Kristensen Consulting
Beddingen 8, Aker Brygge
Central Business District
N-0250 OSLO, NORWAY
E-mail kc@kristensenconsulting.com
Office +47 22 82 36 44
Mobile +47 92 61 50 08
Blog www.collaborationperspectives.com
Twitter www.twitter.com/k_kristensen
Web www.kristensenconsulting.com