The Culture of Collaboration

BusinessWeek.com Launches Collaboration Column

Internal competition wreaks havoc in organizations, compromising collaboration and reducing value. The cost is often hidden, but it can be significant. That’s why my first column on collaboration for BusinessWeek.com focuses on internal competition. The column is part of the site’s Management section, which offers actionable business information. So my column offers 5 ways that leaders can reduce internal competition.

Check out “The Hidden Cost of Internal Competition” on the BusinessWeek.com site.

Collaboration Curing Multiple Sclerosis

It was definitely unorthodox. Many said it was impossible. But it looks like The Myelin Repair Foundation has done it. MRF, which is working on curing multiple sclerosis, is about to meet its ambitious goal of licensing a discovery for commercial drug development within five years. Through a collaborative research model, the Silicon Valley-based foundation has reduced drug development time from 15 years to 5 years. MRF is negotiating with a biotech company and believes a license agreement is in the works.

 

Intuit Founder Scott Cook, a foundation supporter, suggested I research MRF when I was writing The Culture of Collaboration book.  In the book, I tell the story of how Scott Johnson, who has MS, learned that a cure was taking three or four times as long because of competition among researchers. This prompted Johnson to rethink the culture of medical research and begin changing that culture. Scientists often refuse to share data and information, because they compete for limited grant money and for publishing articles in top medical journals. The answer was to get experts in different disciplines to collaborate. So Johnson raised money, ultimately plowed $20 million into drug discovery work, and built a collaborative medical research foundation.

 

Johnson brought in fellow tech start-up veteran Russell Bromley as chief operating officer. And Johnson and Bromley recruited five principal investigators who head labs.  They proposed a level of collaboration for curing disease that none of the scientists had ever experienced. Their focus was to repair myelin, the sheath that surrounds the nerves, which MS damages. Johnson and Bromley with input from the researchers developed a Collaborative Research Process, which addresses everything from tools to incentives.

 

Since its founding in 2004, MRF has advanced work towards a cure for MS beyond anything anybody else had imagined within this timeframe. “Because of our work, we have a much clearer understanding of how to drive neural stem cells to the site of myelin damage in the central nervous system and instruct the myelin-producing cells to remyelinate,” Johnson writes in his recent president’s message.

 

The Myelin Repair Foundation’s game-changing collaborative approach sets a new standard for medical research. The broader medical research community should sit up and take notice that collaboration among researchers creates greater value than competition.

 

Collaborating out of the Downturn Focus of Blog Talk Radio Interview

I discussed collaboration with Zane Safrit yesterday morning on his hour-long Blog Talk Radio show. You can listen to the show here.

 

When he was CEO of Conference Calls Unlimited, Zane masterfully used blogging as a marketing and business tool. His small company, based in a rural Iowa community, adopted collaborative culture and tools as an advantage in a marketplace saturated with large players. Zane is a super-capable, collaborative leader.

 

Our conversation ranged from common denominators and motivators for companies wanting to adopt collaborative culture and the biggest mistakes companies make. We also discussed the need to replace star-oriented culture and the role of collaboration in an economic recovery.

 

Zane asked me how companies can balance the need for collaboration with the need for consistency, routines and procedures. It’s a thoughtful question that organizations should consider. I explained that it’s necessary to include collaboration in policies and procedures, so that people are consistently collaborative J.

 

Towards the end of the show, we focused more on the economy. Zane asked me about the biggest trends regarding collaborative culture over the next two years. Here’s what I said:

 

People are going to realize what collaboration is and what it isn’t, and I absolutely believe that collaboration will help deliver us from the downturn. We need to abandon the herd mentality. I blogged about this on March 15, 2009 with a call to action. You can read the post here.

 

There’s a misconception that collaboration is about running with the herd. Real collaboration involves constructive confrontation….coming together to hash out issues, make decisions, improve processes and develop products and services. And it’s much broader than companies. It’s about governments collaborating across agencies and departments, with citizens and with other governments. It’s about people working together to create value in our communities.

 

It’s about changing education so that we’re developing collaborators. The more educated people are, the more competitive they are. Our educational system beats collaboration out of us. That’s changing.

 

I’ve lived and worked in smaller communities where many people get jobs right out of high school. They’re used to working together to cook dinner at the VFW or help neighbors repair tornado damage. It’s this type of attitude that we need to nourish in our country, in higher education, in companies, in and among governments. Coming out of this downturn, star culture and internal competition are unaffordable. Collaboration will drive the recovery.

 

“How will that change our economy, culture, country?” Zane asked me.

I responded:

 

It’ll be back to basics…working together to create real value. The mortgage mess, the financial collapse were rooted in artificial value. We gave the keys to the country and the economy to star competitors… the best and the brightest who went to top schools and competed for themselves without considering the bigger picture. Now we need to entrust our companies, governments and communities to collaborators. And we’re going to build long-term, sustainable value.

Innovation Value Institute Enhances Collaboration and Unlocks IT Value

As I stepped into the new “innovation zone” outfitted with leather couches, lounge chairs and café-style tables and stools at Chevron’s headquarters in San Ramon, California yesterday, ideas were flying. The Innovation Value Institute, a consortium focused on enhancing information technology’s role and demonstrating its value, has set up shop for two days at Chevron and yesterday announced its efforts. You can hear the announcement and see slides here. Collaboration is fundamental to IVI in that:

 

1) Competitors are collaborating in the consortium

2) IVI’s framework will enhance collaboration between IT and business units

 

The core consortium includes oil and gas competitors Chevron and BP, competing consulting firms Boston Consulting Group and Ernst & Young, and software companies Microsoft and SAP. Northrop Grumman is also part of the core group as is Intel. In fact, Martin Curley, Intel’s global director of IT innovation, co-directs the Institute, which is housed at the National University of Ireland, Maynooth. Each company is sharing intellectual property, and the partners are all getting more out of the collaboration than the IP that they’re investing. Through the consortium, according to Curley, the members are shifting their thinking and approach from “competitive advantage to collaborative advantage.”

 

IT is evolving from a service to a “business-embedded” role within enterprises. “IT organizations grew up with the service business model… acting as waiters and waitresses. What technology can I serve you today?” notes Natalie Stone, director of business strategy for Northrop Grumman. “We’ve come pretty far, and we’re poised to take the next leap.”

 

That next leap for the consortium members involves developing an IT Capability Maturity Framework (IT-CMF) of 36 interconnected processes—things like service analytics and intelligence, enterprise architecture, and innovation management. The idea is to establish a common language and standards for measuring how IT creates business value.

 

So, how does IVI quantify the value? Ralf Dreischmeier, partner and managing director of the Boston Consulting Group, says the consortium is focused on “50/50/50.” That means increasing IT return-on-investment by fifty percent, reducing time-to-market by fifty percent, and reducing business costs by fifty percent.

 

Consortiums often deliver little more than announcements and joint news releases, because of the lack of collaboration. “Five to ten years ago, this would have been dead,” insists Dreischmeier. “People were much more protectionist, thinking only about their little environment.”  IVI is succeeding because of the premium its members are putting on trust, sharing and innovation. These are three of the Ten Cultural

Elements of Collaboration that I identify In The Culture of Collaboration book.

 

In parallel, businesses can create greater value if there is more trust between IT and business units. “If you don’t have the trust, there’s no way you’re going to make IT better,” acknowledges Chevron CIO Louie Ehrlich. Environment is another element, and Chevron’s “innovation zone” is designed to enhance collaboration and experimentation. “Chevron likes to do things with quality or not at all, but sometimes we need to lighten up and make mistakes,” insists Jack Anderson, Chevron’s innovation specialist, a consortium participant who is also championing collaboration within his company.

 

I’ve blogged and written in my book, spoken and advised organizations about how cultural diversity enhances collaboration, enables broader input and contributes to better decisions and products. Culture may be regional, organizational, functional, or departmental. The IVI includes cultural diversity on all of these levels. “Diverse groups work much better together,” is how Edwina Fitzmaurice, partner with Ernst & Young, sums it up. Fitzmaurice, based in Ireland, has a diverse professional background including stints as CEO of Prudential Europe Management Services and CIO of J. Rothschild International.

 

Many of the consortium members—and many other enterprises and IT vendors—have developed their own frameworks for IT value. Microsoft is no exception. There’s broad agreement, though, that an industry standard framework makes more sense for vendors and enterprises. “We can then talk about our product portfolio in a way that resonates rather than being product-centered,” says Samm DiStasio, senior director for business architecture and optimization in Microsoft’s enterprise and partner group.

 

Ultimately, ITI’s work will be publicly available—but it will never be finished. The nature of a collaborative framework is that it’s dynamic. As business shifts and IT evolves, ITI’s model will also change.

Lodestar Gets Nearly 700 Nominations for $250K Collaboration Prize

The Lodestar Foundation has received 600 to 700 nominations for its first annual $250,000 collaboration prize. Today is the deadline, and I just got off the phone with Lois Savage, the foundation’s president. Lois tells me that the impetus for the prize is the lack of models for collaboration among non-profits. The prize process creates the opportunity to gather information about effective collaborative practice models that academics and non-profit practitioners can study.  

 

Too often in the non-profit sector, funders try to drive collaboration by forcing organizations with similar objectives and interests to work together. Lois calls them “shotgun weddings.” These usually fail. Similarly, successful collaboration in the for-profit workplace requires more than tools and an edict to collaborate.

 

The Collaboration Prize recognizes collaboration among two or more nonprofit organizations that would otherwise provide the same or similar services and compete for money, clients and staff. The Lodestar Foundation, created by real estate developer Jerry Hirsch of Phoenix, focuses on process and structure of non-profits rather than on specific philanthropic activities. Lodestar’s guiding principle is encouraging non-profits to use efficient business practices. Collaboration fits into that framework by maximizing resources and reducing competition among organizations tackling similar issues. Lodestar has funded cooperative ventures and new organizational structures including coalitions and mergers.

 

Here’s how the prize selection process works: La Piana Associates of Emeryville, California, a management consulting firm for non-profits, will review submissions for eligibility. AIM, the Arizona-Indiana-Michigan Alliance, will review nominations and select eight semi-finalists. AIM is a consortium that includes The Lodestar Center for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Innovation at Arizona State University, the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University, and the Johnson Center for Philanthropy and Nonprofit Leadership at Grand Valley State University in Michigan. Sterling Speirn, president and CEO of the W.K. Kellogg Foundation, will chair a panel that will choose the recipients from among the finalists.

 

The Lodestar Foundation is one of a growing number of foundations that are embracing collaboration. In July of 2006, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation announced 16 grants totaling $287 million to fund an international network of highly- collaborative research consortia focused on developing an HIV vaccine. In The Culture of Collaboration book, I write about the Myelin Repair Foundation’s collaborative research model. The model creates incentives for data sharing and collaboration among scientists at different universities working on treatments for multiple sclerosis.

 

While the non-profit sector has focused recently on adopting efficient business practices, the for-profit sector may also look to non-profits for guidance. There is certainly room for knowledge transfer among both sectors to share successful collaboration models.

BMW, Daimler and Collaborating with Competitors

Collaborating with competitors involves yin and yang, two opposing and simultaneously complementary facets of a single phenomenon. This balance can create substantial value, particularly when the collaboration involves common processes that provide no competitive advantage. An example of this is the Exostar consortium, which has brought efficiencies to purchasing through a shared, online environment.

BMW is currently in talks with its competitor, Daimler, to produce and purchase vehicle components including engines. As a story by Edward Taylor in today’s Wall Street Journal points out, Germany’s archrival luxury car makers have determined that collaboration may give them bigger economies of scale to prevent further erosion of margins.

Ford Motor Company has successfully reduced costs by sharing components across its brands. The premise is that there are many commodity parts that have little to do with customer perception of brand value. In Ford’s C-Car shared technologies program, engineers and executives of Mazda (partially owned by Ford), Ford Europe and Volvo collaborated to reduce development costs for specific small car models. An added benefit is that Ford has reduced internal competition among brands and increased the sharing of best practices.

Since BMW and Daimler are smaller than Ford, the German companies have fewer opportunities to achieve economies of scale without collaborating across company lines. The Wall Street Journal quotes a source who says that executives and engineers from both companies “from the top right down to the middle management” are discussing collaboration.

My experience in working with numerous organizations on implementing collaboration is that a bottom/up strategy is just as important as top/down. For BMW or Daimler to collaborate with an arch rival involves a cultural shift, and there will undoubtedly be resistance. Therefore, leaders must engage and involve team members at all levels and corners of the organization in this shift so that both organizations will ultimately embrace the new way of working. 

Sustainability Fuels Collaboration Consciousness

Both academia and business are realizing that the lack of collaboration can impede progress. Traditionally, university researchers compete for limited grant money, so there is little incentive to collaborate.

In a Christmas day story in The New York Times, Claudia H. Deutsch reported on several academic sustainability centers that focus on collaborating across disciplines. One is the Golisano Institute for Sustainability at the Rochester Institute of Technology. The article quotes Nabil Nasr, the institute’s director, as saying “the problem of sustainability cuts across economics, social elements, engineering, everything. It simply cannot be solved by one discipline, or even by coupling two disciplines.” Well said!

Now The Dow Chemical Company, through its foundation, is funding a Sustainable Products and Solutions Program at The Center for Responsible Business at the Haas School of Business at The University of California-Berkeley. Dow is providing $10 million over the next five years and sending a Dow leader to Berkeley as an executive-in-residence. Part of his role is to recruit other industry partners to fund the program. What’s compelling about the sustainability program is that the Department of Chemistry is collaborating with the business school and the program will likely involve students and faculty from other disciplines. The bottom line is that environmental and sustainability concerns run deep enough and are so complex that they’re sparking collaboration among people who would otherwise do one of three things: compete with each other, ignore one another, or remain at odds with each other.

Urgency in the environmental realm is clearly driving collaboration across disciplines, but sustainability is by no means the only area in which universities and corporations should be applying collaborative principles, practices and processes. In the business realm…marketing should be collaborating with research and development, R&D should be collaborating with information technology, sales should be collaborating with the market research group, and so on. This should be happening asynchronously and in real time.

Collaboration and Star Culture

Collaboration requires collaborative culture. That’s the whole point of this blog. The opposite of collaborative culture is star culture, which our collective culture—particularly in the United States—perpetuates. The media is certainly complicit, because celebrity stories draw audiences. Therefore, the media has a vested interest in manufacturing stars—not just Hollywood people, but business leaders, athletes, entrepreneurs, surgeons, chefs and others. Food writers are particularly culpable, and we’ve certainly seen the celebrity craze spread to winemakers.

Now, apparently, star culture is trying to envelop tequila makers. Last Friday, the San Francisco Chronicle ran a short article by Camper English headlined “Next big thing: Tequila bottle signings.” You can read the article here. The story begins, “Further evidence that distillers are the new rock stars…” We learn from the article that Carlos Camarena, owner and third-generation master distiller of El Tesoro Tequila, will be in San Francisco to sign autographs on $185 bottles of tequila at a liquor store.

Clearly, Mr. Camarena is not alone in contributing to the success of El Tesoro. According to El Tesoro’s web site, making tequila begins with the jimador, the person who hand picks perfectly-ripe agaves and separates the pina, the juicy blue core, from the rest of the plant. “Most other tequila producers use an automated system that processes the entire stem,” the web site notes. Next workers cut the pinas into quarters with a special ax. In the next stage, workers use the traditional method of baking the pina quarters for 36 hours and cooling them for another 36 hours. Next workers use a one-ton stone wheel called a tahona to crush the pinas, extracting their juices. There are three more steps.

The point is that many people with a variety of expertise collaborate to make El Tesoro tequila. While I appreciate the marketing benefits of Mr. Camarena signing tequila bottles during his rock star-style tour, this feeds into star culture and sends the wrong message to the public and to El Tesoro team members. Promoting the CEO as a star may produce a momentary marketing bounce, but a collaborative culture sustains greater business value than a star culture.

BMW Collaboration with DaimlerChrysler

Collaboration creates value internally, with business partners, and sometimes with competitors. But how do we know whether collaborating with competitors makes sense? One test is whether collaboration saves money for everybody involved without risking marketplace position or advantage.

BMW and DaimlerChrysler are expanding their collaboration on developing hybrid drive systems. The collaboration, described in a story in Reliable Plant Magazine, will let the two companies achieve increased efficiency through economies of scale. The plan is to accelerate commercialization. Since each company will adapt the components in different ways to complement each brand, the deal is considered win/win. 

BMW has a long and rich commitment to collaboration. As I describe in The Culture of Collaboration book, BMW figured out how to integrate collaborative tools and culture into its operations long before many other companies. Telecooperation is the word BMW has used to describe the marriage of collaborative tools and culture in a globally-distributed design and manufacturing environment. And the X5 was the first vehicle built entirely through telecooperation. In 1999, the company invited me to visit its design center in Munich. I witnessed then how engineers in Munich were successfully collaborating with counterparts in Spartanburg, South Carolina. Some months later, the physical representation of their collaboration, the X5, rolled off the line.

Whether collaboration is internal or external, the marriage of tools and culture can create awesome value.

Collaborating with Cuba

On a flight from Montego Bay, Jamaica a couple of weeks ago, I was passing the time by monitoring pilot/control tower communications. United Airlines lets passengers eavesdrop on Channel 9 of the airline’s audio system. As the plane left Jamaican air space, the controller signed off with a customary “Good day.” Shortly thereafter, I heard a female Spanish accent. The plane was entering Cuban air space, and the pilot had established a link with Havana air traffic control. There was constant conversation as the Cuban controller guided the pilot in his ascent. This collaboration continued until the Cuban controller handed off the pilot to controllers in Miami but not before signing off with a friendly “Buenas tardes.”

It makes absolute sense, of course, that U.S. commercial airline pilots collaborate with Cuban air traffic controllers as planes enter and leave Cuban air space. Nevertheless, the U.S. embargo suggests that Cuba is an enemy of the state. So, in effect, the United pilot was collaborating with the “enemy.”

In the business realm, competitors are often considered enemies. Does it make sense to collaborate with competitors? Sometimes. Consider the many joint ventures among competitors and such consortiums as Exostar in the aerospace industry. Exostar lets competitor/partners and suppliers collaborate asynchronously through team rooms and synchronously through web conferencing. It’s a situation in which people may be collaborators in the morning and competitors in the afternoon. The acid test of whether collaborating with competitors makes sense is whether the collaboration creates value for all of the collaborators.