Phase 0: Fragmentation
As the usage of collaboration tools grows in an unmanaged and unconsidered way, so does the "fragmentation" of information. Key information is divided into ever-smaller spaces, locked up out of broad use, generating considerable information management and knowledge management problems. (This is not a search problem.)
Agree with this - and not only the fragmentation of information but the fragmentation of activities, relationships, etc. N.B. This is bad.
Phase 1: Gardening
The starting point is to identify an overall owner for the collaboration tools, and to put in place simple governance, policies and management. Rather than trying to restrict usage, the approach is one of "gardening", helping to guide usage , connect the dots and identify best practices.
Also broadly agree with this. Except that gardening might be the wrong word. This is about identifying the existing collaboration tools within an organisation. What they are. Who uses what. What activities they are used for. And then how these different tools might fit together. And where the gaps between them might be. Something like mapping perhaps? The concept of guiding usage is critical here - "Just enough governance".
Phase 2: Business solutions
The next step is to identify key (and common) needs, and build solutions that are tailored to meet them. In this way, clear user needs can guide how to bring together different solutions (wikis, blogs, lists) into more coherent solutions. Possible targets include project collaboration, teaching or e-learning, collaborative authoring, communities of practice or research.
Nothing to disagree with here. Using the map to produce repeatable toolsets.
Phase 3: Rich networks
Organisation-wide collaboration will only be achieved with the silos are broken down between different spaces. This involves recognising the difference between "inwards" and "outwards" facing spaces, and putting in place processes for sharing and linking between them.
Now many organisations are currently in phases 0 & 1. Several are starting to move to phase 2. Are there any out there that have reached phase 3? These rich networks will almost certainly be a federated model.
Phase 4: Coherence
This is the end goal, where there is coordination between the collaboration spaces at all levels, accessed through a personalised portal-like interface. The lines between different "tools" is blurred, creating a single working environment. (There's a lot to be done before anyone can reach this state.)
I look at phase 4 and go "yeah, right". The collaboration tool space is changing very quickly at the moment. Phase 4 feels like a utopia at the moment. And given this dynamic environment, a very unlikely utopia. I think many organisations have enough on their plate trying to get to phase 3. I would feel nervous talking about phase 4 because I can just see a senior exec going: "This sounds great, I want one of these by the end of the month!" and mayhem ensuing. What is more likely in the next 1-3 years are rich networks (collaborative ecosystems) and then richer networks - with tools dropping in and out. "Coherence" feels way too static to me as a goal at the moment.
What do you think?
Posts
4 comments:
Matt,
I think a knowledge audit and mapping might be good starting points to determine what knowledge exists and how it is networked. However, I don't have a problem with fractured collaboration, if the collaboration is useful and meaningful to the participants, AND the collaboration (in its fractured state) becomes visible or is at least identified within the organisation.
Finally, total organisational collaborativeness is likely to be possible in small organisations, but not in large organisations - unless you mean the generic organisational culture from which collaborative activities may form.
Brad - I think fractured collaboration is the reality - and I don't have a problem with different groups using different tools for different purposes.
I think there is an opportunity for groups to learn from one another and share tools. And for organisations to learn how to do collaboration better.
I think far too much discussion and attempted practice in this arena is still focused on the information and the tools to make it visible (wikis, dashboards, intranets etc.
And I wholly agree that the model looks too static, at all levels and phases of the progress.
Organisations need to get their minds out of that particular set and remember what the purpose is, CO (together) LABORATE (work).
Focus on the tasks that have to be achieved, create flexible tools that can be adapted by the people who choose to use them to achieve those tasks. Let the rest take care of itself.
If there is a collateral benefit in capturing and being able to re-use the information, if it can be archived and resurrected as corporate knowledge at some point down the track, fine, if not, OK.
What matters is that the organisation DOES what it sets out to do. Unless it DOES, it is dead. Its tools should contribute to that goal and forget the rest.
Earl - oddly enough, I am having a lot of conversations like that at the moment. The immediate issue is: are people getting the tools they need to do their jobs properly? However as organisations get more interlinked, how I do my job has a greater impact on how you do your job.
Post a Comment