« Enterprise 2.0: working in the middle ground | Main | Social networks and group formation »

Adopting collaboration: continuing the discussion

A few days ago I posted a model for the adoption of collaboration, which outlined the following phases:

• Phase 0: Fragmentation
• Phase 1: Gardening
• Phase 2: Business solutions
• Phase 3: Rich networks
• Phase 4: Coherence

This has generated some excellent conversation via other blogs. Matt Moore started the conversation by adding his insights against each of the phases:

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.

I certainly agree that phase 4, is a "nirvana" state and that phase 3 is the goal for the next 1-3 years. I don't believe we can even articulate what "coherence" would really look like yet, although vendors are busy promising it via their solutions. My experience, though, is that we need to "capture the high ground" in these models, explicitly including the longer-term vision. Without this, these models are too quickly ignored when a "sexier" approach comes along. My goal was also to highlight that there are three big phases that come first, before attempting to tackle phase 4...

Still, I agree that it is always dangerous to paint a picture of the "holy grail", particularly if this is taken on by over-enthusiastic senior execs. Matt, any thoughts on how to find a middle ground between the two extremes of no vision and looking too high?

James Dellow then joined the discussion with some excellent insight, including:

To me, James is describing the innovation process and some elements of the collaborative infrastructure, where as I would treat them as parallel processes. The issue that Matt points out is the challenge of trying to reach an equilibrium or stability (or perhaps perfection? - see The Search for the Perfect Intranet). In this respect I think the process James is describing should be seen as a cycle, not an end state. In fact if you managed to stabilise your collaborative environment I would be wondering what you have done wrong.

I definitely agree that this model is very simplistic, and my goal was to give organisations an idea of how (and where) to start, and to get them moving in the right direction.

In practice, many things will be happening in parallel, and different parts of the organisation will be at different phases. There's definitely a need for continuous innovation, but I think that phase 4 is far enough off to prevent organisations from trying to "stabilise" on this state.

It's a challenging (and fun!) space. There's plenty of complexity, and it's still uncharted waters. I do think we need some common language for everyone to align around, and hopefully this simplistic model is the start of that. James, what do you think?

Anyway, thanks for keeping the conversations going, and apologies again for the broken commenting on my site. (I promise I'm working on it, but life's very busy, so I'll need a bit more time!)

Posted by jamesr on September 15, 2007 12:20 PM
Categories: Collaboration