Collaboration is the participation of independent actors in mutual interactions to deliver a specific result, either chosen or not. The so-called collaboration is the outcome of the interactions that occur, initiated by the different participants for their own good reasons, but collaboration is not the purpose.

1. Collaboration as it really is
Working together, alone

2. Collaboration is the participation of independent actors in
mutual interactions to deliver a specific result, either chosen or
not. The so-called collaboration is the outcome of the interactions
that occur, initiated by the different participants for their own
good reasons, but collaboration is not the purpose.

3. Introduction
Over the past months, we have been writing and thinking frequently about
“collaboration”: what it is, what it means, how it can be used, how it can be improved.
Most of this was done in the context of discussions about Enterprise 2.0 and Social
Business, where more and better connectedness is often preached as being the Holy
Grail to get to more and better collaboration.
To some extent, that is true. However, it does not tell the complete story. Therefore, in
some of our posts, we have been arguing against such “jump-to-conclusions” thinking.
However, after a while, we had to discover that also our own ideas were not always as
accurate or as complete as we initially thought.
So, this paper is essentially a thinking exercise about what collaboration really is. The
purpose is not to get the ultimate proof for our own ideas, but simply to get to a better
understanding, a deeper insight into what collaboration really is and therefore, to get a
more correct view on how this might create more value for our organisations and
more meaning in our life.
This is a discussion paper so, as always, we welcome your comments and ideas.
Key observations
The following gives a brief overview of the most important observations that result
from our analysis. Understanding these will help you better understand the potential
success or failure of so-called “social” initiatives.
Collaboration is an outcome, or if you want, a side-effect of the
act of “working together”; it is not a purpose, nor objective.
The key variable for collaboration is the “collaboration intent”,
the willingness to engage in a joint effort based upon our
perception of the potential risks, inconveniences and rewards that
the collaboration will bring.
This perception is largely function of our “context” as an employee
within the organisation, a context which, in most situations,
allows for little manoeuvrability allowing us to adjust our context
for a better collaboration intent.

4. Consequently, solutions such as social tools that essentially
address the “ease of working together” itself by improving
connectedness, find-ability and share-ability, add little to improve
the real level and the quality of the collaboration since they have
hardly impact on the collaboration intent.
In addition, above mentioned “context” is also a “protection
frame” that further reduces the need / willingness to fully engage
in collaboration. Again, social tools do not provide a real
alternative for this protection frame.
Finally, collaboration remains a thing of humans that interact and
therefore, the outcome is largely function of the personalities of
all participants. Again, no tools or workarounds will
fundamentally change this. Same as for most situations of real
knowledge work, you simply need the right individuals for the
right job.
The collaboration “system”
Like most things in life, collaboration is a simple thing. However, we humans have
tendency not to think too much about simple things and then, they sometimes seem
to become complex, since they rarely work out as planned. This paper is an exercise in
simple thinking about simple things so that we might understand what makes them
often complex.
What is collaboration?
As some have argued in the comments on our blog, collaboration has many facets and
consequently, the inner workings of collaboration are not always the same.
That is true. When thinking about how people work together when facing a disaster, it
is clear that this has little to do with the way we work together in the context of a
business project.
So, for the present paper, the scope is limited to collaboration in a "regular" business
context, either within a single company or between companies and therefore, the
starting point for the discussion is this Wikipedia definition:

5. Collaboration is working together to achieve a goal. It is a
recursive process where two or more people or organizations work
together to realize shared goals, (this is more than the
intersection of common goals seen in co-operative ventures, but a
deep, collective, determination to reach an identical objective)
This definition is OK, but as we will see, it is really insufficient to clearly understand the
reasons why collaboration sometimes does work and why it so often doesn’t work at
all.
The collaboration "system"
To get to this deeper understanding, we must look at the larger picture, at the
"context" of the collaboration, at the "system" that drives the interactions between all
participants and doing so, determines the success or the failure of the collaboration.
We’ll do so by looking at how and why two companies work together. For the reasons
that will become obvious later on, this is a more simple and straightforward model
that we then can extend to understand why individuals work together (or not).
Company A
Objective /
Deliverable
Company A
GOALS
As always, the basic premise is a company looking for a solution. In this case, Company
A that has its corporate goals and ambitions and that has identified an intermediate
objective or deliverable that will help it on its path towards success.
If Company A can get itself to this intermediate objective or deliverable in an efficient
and effective way, there is no need for collaboration. Of course, reality is different and
often, a company has to reach outside to complement its own capabilities.

6. So this brings us to the next picture where we see our Company A working together
with Company B, in some way, in order to jointly get to this intermediate objective or
deliverable.
Company A Company B
Joint
effort
Objective /
Deliverable
Company B Company A
GOALS GOALS
As the graph suggests, only the intermediate objective or deliverable is shared.
However, there is no need that the corporate goals of both companies are identical. In
theory, they can be completely different and even conflicting.
Moreover, even the notion of the “common intermediate objective or deliverable” is a
bit stretched. For Company A, this really is a deliverable it wants to have, because it
will help the company on its path towards success. However, for Company B, most
likely, this deliverable has no further importance for its own strategy. Only the act of
participating in the creation of the deliverable is important.
Still, both companies view the intermediate objective as something that adds value,
something that will help them on their path to success and therefore are willing to
work together, be it perhaps for very different reasons.
The dirty little secret of collaboration
OK, most likely, the above will seem rather obvious.
However, is it really?
For most of us, collaboration is seen as a very positive act. "Working together to
achieve a common goal". Could it be nicer?

7. However, reality is that in most collaboration acts "nice" is only a "nice to have"
characteristic. For collaboration to succeed, it isn’t really necessary that all parties
involved really like each other. In most cases, they don’t. Just have a look at how you
work together with your colleagues. Do you really like all of them? Are they real
friends?
If collaboration would require that all parties involved really "like" each other, little
productive would happen in this world. But fortunately, collaboration is a rather selfish
act that you participate in because it will bring you closer to your GOAL, your own
chosen GOAL. And that behaviour is essentially what we call "economy".
Collaboration and trust
As we described above, the basic concept of collaboration is simple: working together
to achieve a common goal or objective. In addition, we also have the reassuring
understanding that we still can collaborate, even while more or less disliking each
other. So, why is it still so difficult?
The thing called "confidence"
Collaboration is a fundamental human behaviour. The human race wouldn’t have
survived without it. So why is it often such a problem in a business context?
Well, the answer is quite simple. Technically speaking, collaboration in a business
context is not really more difficult than it is in our private life. Only, our perception of
the level of control we (think to) have over the situation is completely different.
Also in our private life, our level of "real" control is limited. To a large extent, we are
"lived" by our context: the family we are part of, the society we belong to, the
neighbourhood where we live, our education, our job. Still, in most cases, we do not
really feel constrained by this context and we are willing to take the necessary risks:
getting married, getting kids, buying a house...
In general, in our private life, we have a rather low awareness of potential risks and
high confidence that we will manage, even when things go somewhat wrong. In a
business context, which is by definition a much more controlled and planned
environment, we have a much higher awareness of potential risks and a much lower
confidence that we will manage.
Why this difference?

8. Well, the main reason for this is that a company is not a natural system. A company is
an artefact, which existence is governed by specific laws and rules that allow it to exist
as a whole at the size and the level of complexity that it has. By definition, every non-
natural system is fragile since it does not exist close to its natural "balance point" and
every uncontrolled change can make it collapse. It’s an elephant on long thin legs.
To some extent, collaboration is an act of being open for uncontrolled change.
Stepping into a discussion with a stranger
The collaboration "system" that we presented above is simple enough. However,
applying this in the business context of a company with a high degree of "need for
control" introduces quite a number of perceived risks.
inability /
dependency
uncertainty
- -
decision
to act
-
loss of
diversity
control
+ -
joint
effort
objective / +
deliverable
Inability / uncertainty
First, and this is not something the company has full control of, there is the challenge
of finding and selecting the right partner. This problem cannot be completely solved
today. Despite all our communication capabilities and our access to company
information in various forms, finding and selecting the right partner remains a
challenge.

9. This challenge will not be easily addressed. A main issue here is openness. Having a
good partner is an asset that you do not readily want to share with everyone.
Dependency
A second challenge is dependency. Companies do not want to depend too much upon
other parties. Although many of them have grown to large collaborative ecosystems
with suppliers and subcontractors, most of this is strictly hierarchical and allows for
little mutual influential interaction.
Loss of control
A bit in the same context, there is the aversion for too much loss of control.
This concern is of course completely expected in the context of the discussion we have
here but to a large extent, it is a false feeling. Indeed, most companies that want to
have a high degree of control will in reality overdo it, adding unnecessary layers of
authority, procedures and rules that only slow down the pace of activity without
substantially improving the "safety" of the system.
Having to loosen up some part of the formal control can improve the operational
performance of such company.
Diversity
Finally, there is diversity. Differences in the mutual "culture" of the collaborating
companies can be a significant burden for success. Bringing in a partner that can
complement your own capabilities or that is more efficient in the delivery of certain
services, will by definition mean that this partner will be "different" in some way and,
most likely, this will necessitate some changes in your own default behaviour in order
to make the collaboration succeed.
At the same time, such confrontation of different cultural views can also be an
opportunity to detect new possibilities, new ways of addressing certain problems,
which can benefit both parties.
Alone, together
OK, this is only a very brief and incomplete overview and much more can be said about
this. In essence, none of these perceived risks really should be a major problem.
However, they become problems to the extent that we want to keep our "context"
identical.
So, this brings us to this interesting dualism:

10. • On the one hand, as we described in above, collaboration is perfectly possible
while both parties have completely different visions about their final
destination. They only have to agree on the intermediate objective or
deliverable.
• On the other hand, if we want to maximize the value that the collaboration can
bring, we cannot restrict our context to what it was before, which might mean
that we have to review the vision we have about our final destination.
It is a bit like marriage, but without the pheromones.
Social collaboration
In the first part of this paper, we briefly described the "system" of collaboration
between two companies. This was a very high-level overview that didn't touch on
many of the specifics of business collaboration, but it is sufficient to identify some of
the basic rules:
• In order to collaborate, the companies do not need to have identical world
views.
• For most companies, collaboration will introduce elements that are seen as
risks or inconveniences, which can be a burden to act and to perform.
• By definition, collaboration is a confrontation of different perceptions, which is
both a nuisance and an opportunity for learning and improving.
Now, let's move on to individuals. However, we will not yet examine how individuals
collaborate in a business context. Instead, we will look at how individuals "collaborate"
in a social media context or, as it was previously coined, in a Web 2.0 context. As we all
know, the visible success of Web 2.0 platforms has been the incentive for people such
as Andrew McAfee to wonder what marvels would happen if similar tools were
deployed within the enterprise. And he coined it Enterprise 2.0, the dawn of emergent
collaboration.
As we all know meanwhile, Enterprise 2.0 wasn't really a homerun. And the reason for
this is, once again, very simple: we thought that we saw expressions of real
collaboration in the Web 2.0 space, but in reality, there were none.

11. It is about the individual, not about collaboration
What follows here is not new. We already wrote this in July 2009 in our 'Enterprise 2.0
- Enter the dark force' post:
Individual B
Individual A Individual C
participation
participation participation
Individual A Individual C
GOALS GOALS
Individual B
GOALS
"The essence of Web 2.0 is about individuals who make use of some form of
technology (wiki, social network, etc.) to gain a personal advantage.
With Web 2.0, we are always talking about social networks, social media,
collaboration, but in reality, the main driving force of the social web is not social.
It is selfish personal interest. People want to participate because it fulfils some of
their desires. This can be a desire for contact, self-expression, self-promotion,
recognition, escaping the daily rut, whatever. However, always because they
want to, because this participation delivers a direct, personal benefit.
When multiple individuals participate using the same platform, interactions will
occur. The individuals can/will mutually influence each other's experience and
this will result in "something", in some kind of side-effects. It will create a new
context for each participant that will influence the willingness for further
participation. In addition, once a platform reaches a certain level of participation
or starts delivering sufficient "side-effects", this can become the reason for non-
participants to get attracted to the platform anyway. But, of course, it can also
work the other way.

12. So, the expressions that we commonly use such as "social" or "collaborative" are
in fact not very well chosen. They refer to our perception of the potential
outcome of the joint participation, but blur our view on the real mechanism
behind."
OK, that was 2009, but these statements are still equally valid today. Web 2.0 or social
media are not about collaboration, they are about participation for a personal
advantage and all these participations create a "context", some form of deliverable,
which, such as in the case of Wikipedia, can be seen as valuable.
However, we must not confuse this participation with real collaboration. The
difference might seem subtle, but think about the risks and inconveniences associated
with collaboration that we discussed above.
Are you experiencing any such things when participating on a social platform? Of
course not! The nice thing about social networks is that they are essentially opt-in. You
participate because you choose to and if the thing doesn't suit your needs, you quit.
No questions asked. It is essentially a zero-commitment environment.
Unfortunately, business is not exactly a zero-commitment environment and that is
where it all starts to go wrong. The power of "social" is enormous, but social does not
work unless a) you have the authority to decide whether you participate or not and b)
the final deliverable is not set beforehand.
As we all know, none of these conditions fits very well with the reality of today's
enterprises.
Participative collaboration
Above, we described how individuals participate on Web 2.0 platforms or in social
networks and how this sometimes, such as in the case of Wikipedia, delivers tangible,
valuable outcomes. This "participative collaboration" model also exists in business
contexts and to some extent; it has proven to be one of the more successful models in
the Enterprise 2.0 space.
One of the best known examples of such participative collaboration model in a
business context is crowdsourcing. Crowdsourcing, the act whereby a company,
directly or indirectly via a platform such as Innocentive, tries to attract an expert with
the right knowledge and expertise to address a specific business problem.

13. For the company, finding this expert with the right solution allows it to move further
on its road to success. For the expert, being able to deliver the solution means a
financial reward and perhaps, some form of recognition. Both sides win.
Company A Company B
participation participation
Objective /
Deliverable
Company B Company A
GOALS GOALS
This model has been proven successful and therefore, it has been used at length (or
should we say: abused?) as the "proof" that the Enterprise 2.0 concept really delivers
results.
Well, nothing really wrong with that. We don't mind that we see crowdsourcing as part
of the Enterprise 2.0 space and we don't mind that we call it "collaboration". However,
as we have written before: "Words are an extremely poor representation of our reality
and it only gets worse when we write them down." And we'll add to that: "especially in
PowerPoint".
The problem with putting everything under the same umbrella or calling it all
"collaboration" is that it clouds our view on what makes a certain model successful or
why it simply can work.
In this case, we see "a form of" collaboration that delivers results simply because this
model avoids many of the obstacles that we experience in "real" collaboration
contexts.

14. Same as for the individuals participating in the Web 2.0 space, the "participative
collaboration model" introduces few of the risks or inconveniences that we discussed
earlier in the context of the collaboration between companies. The only one that
essentially remains is addressing the problem of finding and selecting the right expert.
However, this is largely addressed by the platform and since the expert brings the right
solution, this is not really a big issue.
For the rest, there are very little consequences. After the deal, both parties continue
on their own path. No questions asked.
"That expert really was a bit weird!"
"Yes, but now he's gone. Glad I don't have to work with him!"
"Anyway, he would not fit in this company."
A nice solution indeed, but therefore, also very little interaction and mutual influence,
hence little opportunity for learning and for improving. Somehow, a missed
opportunity.
But it works.
This thing called “employee”
OK, let us finally start talking about the individuals who collaborate in an enterprise
context: the employees.
And before doing so, let us further clarify our view on what we think “real”
collaboration is. As we wrote before, the word 'collaboration' can be used to refer to
various flavours of "working together". However, for the sake of this discussion, we
will assume the following characteristics:
• The task at hand requires the involvement of several individuals; no single
person is able to deliver the final outcome on his own (within the required
timeframe).
• The final outcome is largely undefined; there might have been similar tasks
before and there is certainly some form of "high concept" definition, but it
remains a unique deliverable, not done before.
• The path to the final deliverable is largely unknown. There might be past
experiences, best practices, methodologies, etc. that provide guidance;
however, the real path will unfold as the group proceeds.

15. • Due to the above, there is the need for intense interaction between all
participants, exchanging information, making decisions and agreeing on next
steps.
OK, this is a bit challenging, but it is also the type of collaboration that can deliver the
greatest value for the company. The more everything is known and predefined, the
less there is potential for a real breakthrough.
The "collaboration system" that is shown here isn't much different from the one we
discussed earlier for the collaboration between companies. Instead of companies, we
now have a number of employees who have been assigned to the task of realizing this
objective / deliverable, likely chosen based upon their skills, previous experience, etc.
The successful completion of the task will bring all parties closer to their individual
goals. That’s the theory.
However, we all know that things aren't always as simple as they look. So, why is there
this feeling that collaboration within the enterprise often doesn't work as easy as it
seems to work in other social contexts?
Of course, all risks and inconveniences that we listed in the context of the
collaboration between companies are also present here in some way: uncertainty /

16. inability, dependency, loss of control, diversity. However, that doesn't yet explain the
difference. There are always risks and inconveniences in any context.
No, what is different here is our perception of these risks and what we can do about
them, hence our willingness to really take on the challenge.
In the inter-company context, we essentially have collaboration between autonomous
agents. Most likely, that is not completely true, but certainly, to some extent.
However, in the above scenario of collaboration between individuals, these individuals
are employees. We might think that they also are acting as autonomous agents, but in
reality they are well aware of their restricted context as an employee.
And that restricted context as an employee means two things:
• First, their perception of risk will be heavily biased because they will be held
accountable for the result, without however having final authority.
• Second, their ability to adjust your "collaboration context" is limited. Unlike the
individuals participating in the Web 2.0 space, they did not really opt in and
they cannot opt out. It's their job. In addition, many of the easy options that
are otherwise available, such as avoiding the individuals you don't like, are not
really an option here.
In addition, unlike the scenario of the inter-company collaboration, here the parties
involved haven't really chosen the intermediate objective or deliverable. In most cases,
it is a given horse. It is part of their job. Therefore, the likeliness that this objective is
really aligned with their personal goals is small. At least, for most employees in most
companies.
Companies are artificial constructs that do not adhere to the laws of 'normal' complex
social systems. Within the enterprise, collaboration is a complex social system trapped
in an artificial context that disables most of the agility that is really needed for
collaboration to succeed.
Is Enterprise 2.0 a game changer?
In this paper, we have examined the “system” of collaboration, first, between
companies and then, between individuals within an organisation. And we assume that
the Enterprise 2.0 fans who have read this often have wondered: “When is the meat
coming? When are they finally going to talk about Enterprise 2.0?”

17. Indeed, enabling more and better collaboration has always been the mantra of the
Enterprise 2.0 message.
What is happening? How to collaborate? How can I influence? How to share?
Who knows what? Where do I find…? When should I contribute?
These are just some of the questions and issues that we picked up from a presentation
given at a recent Enterprise 2.0 event. Questions and issues that Enterprise 2.0 is
supposed to address.
And of course, to some extent, it really does. Some of these tools can really bridge the
collaboration gaps that exist in today’s global enterprises, streamlining information
flows and, in general, making information more available and findable.
However, in the context of our discussion about the “collaboration system”, we also
must be well aware of the fact that the advantages of Enterprise 2.0 essentially play at
the level of the “collaboration act”, but that it adds very little that will address the
“collaboration intent”.
Collaboration intent
Whatever the Enterprise 2.0 evangelists might claim, the success of collaboration is
only to a limited extent a function of the quality of the tools that are being used, of the
“ease” of collaborating. Instead, collaboration success is essentially a function of the

18. matching of the collaboration intent, of the commitment of the various participants.
And that collaboration intent is the resultant of their individual perception of the risks,
inconveniences and potential rewards that the collaboration will bring. When the right
intent is there, the available tools don’t really matter. Even e-mail will do.
In addition, as the countless adoption discussions of the past have clearly shown, the
introduction of collaborative tools is only a minor trigger for participation and for more
collaboration. The greatest “successes” are essentially seen in contexts where the tools
can really be used (or have to be used) “in the flow” of the daily tasks, streamlining
interactions and information flows.
However, that is what we call “improvement”. While valuable, does this give us the
transformation that will create the agility that is needed in today’s fast-paced, complex
business environment?
Reality is that Enterprise 2.0 tools can surely improve the “technical quality” of the
collaboration act, but they do not fundamentally change the “depth” of the
collaboration. For that to happen, individuals must be allowed to reach outside their
restricted context as an employee, enabling them to adjust their perception of
potential risks, inconveniences and rewards, hence, their collaboration intent and
commitment.
However, that also means exploring new paths, trying new approaches, doing different
things. To what extent is there room for this in today’s organisations?
Especially in the larger corporations, where Enterprise 2.0 tools are often essentially
used to “patch” the deficiencies of isolation, poor information flows and
disconnectedness, resulting from the size and the geographical spread of the
organisation, there is little room for exploring new paths. Such companies are
essentially focused on the replication of existing capabilities, not the discovery of new
capabilities and therefore, they leave little room for reaping the benefits that real
collaboration can bring.
So, Enterprise 2.0 will not be the game changer for collaboration. It can be an enabler
to support new forms of organisations, but it will not transform the enterprise into a
“social enterprise”.
For the social enterprise to exist, companies have to be organised and managed based
upon other values and principles than what we have today. And getting there, if ever
we can, will not be a matter of tools or technology.
Fundamental change is never a matter of tools, always a matter of people.

19. Epilogue
In this paper, we identified "collaboration intent" as the fundamental variable for
successful collaboration. Collaboration intent, the resultant of our perception of the
risks, inconveniences and potential rewards that the collaboration will bring.
Of course, creating the organisational conditions that make that such collaboration
intent is maximised is not a straightforward undertaking. Too many rules, roles and
structures in today's organisations are roadblocks for creating such conditions.
However, that is a discussion that would lead us too far. So, let us assume that we
have the right conditions for our collaboration intent. Will collaboration then happen
seamlessly?
Unfortunately, it does not. At least, not always. After all, collaboration remains an act
of a group of individuals and these individuals all have their own individual "ability to
collaborate".
Collaboration ability

20. If there is one fundamental flaw in nearly everything that is said or written about
Enterprise 2.0, social business and other social enterprises, then it is this thinking
about groups and not about individuals. In nearly every discourse, there is this
underlying assumption that the workforce is like a set of communicating vessels where
knowledge will automatically flow, be replicated and be absorbed by all that are
interconnected. Give us more connectedness and we have a better enterprise.
Well, that is absolute nonsense.
It is not because a group consists of multiple individuals that we must start thinking in
terms of averages. That only blurs our view on what makes things really work (or not).
We ourselves are old enough to have worked in a company, be it also large and
geographically dispersed, with nonetheless a great, open spirit. All conditions for great
collaboration intent were there. Never seen better. However, was it perfect?
Of course not! Even in such organisation, there were colleagues that were a real pain
to work with. Nothing about social networking or social tools would have ever changed
that. It was hard-wired.
Therefore, we must stop thinking about "social" as something that raises the "average"
competence level. Mathematically, it does, of course. However, that improvement will
not at all be distributed equally. Same as for Nielsen's "participation inequality" theory
or the so-called "1% - 9% - 90%" rule, competence improvement will be distributed in a
very unequal way.
Digital and networking and connectedness are great amplifiers and therefore, offer
great opportunities for learning. However, it is not because all these posts, status
messages and tweets get into your timeline that it makes you any better or smarter.
It's not about what you get, but about what you do with it. And finally, that remains
the decision of the individual and not of the group.
And most likely, it is also better so.
An Xpragma white paper
June 2012 Xpragma bvba
Mechelsesteenweg 254
Frontpage picture: Kevin Dooley 2820 Bonheiden
www.flickr.com/photos/pagedooley/ Belgium
Tags: BIM (Business Interaction Management), +32-(0)15-340 845
collaboration, Enterprise 2.0, social business info@xpragma.com
www.xpragma.com