The Culture of Collaboration

Non-Profit Collaboration Creating Value

The cost of internal competition plagues almost every company. But the private sector is by no means the only sector that competes. With limited funding, particularly during the Great Recession and the fledgling Great Recovery, non-profit organizations have increasingly competed for shrinking grant dollars. And while the for-profit sector may regard the non-profit sector as populated by less-competitive do-gooders, competition in the non-profit arena can rival that of private industry.

For private-sector companies, competing in the marketplace furthers objectives, namely to increase revenue and market share.  In contrast, non-profit organizations compromise their objectives when they compete with other non-profits that share their mission.  The cynical among us might believe that the first goal of some non-profits is preserving themselves to employ administrators and staff and that their service mission is secondary. Let’s assume, though, that the primary goal of most non-profits is to further their mission. In that case, collaboration among non-profits creates far greater value.

Some foundations have developed programs to encourage non-profit organizations to collaborate. The Myelin Repair Foundation, which is working to cure multiple sclerosis, has recruited five principal investigators from different universities. With input from the researchers, MRF developed a Collaborative Research Process, which addresses everything from tools to incentives. You can read more about MRF in my July 16, 2009 post. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has funded a collaborative research consortia comprising 165 investigators globally to accelerate HIV Vaccine Development. For both MRF and the Gates Foundation, collaboration is reducing time-to-a-cure.

Foundations are by no means the only funders favoring and, in some cases, insisting on collaboration among non-profits that they support. In some cases, funders use a heavy hand in forcing organizations to share resources or join forces. But ordering people to collaborate misses the point. The most successful non-profit collaborations are those in which non-profits and their funders collaborate to achieve common goals.

This is exactly what’s happening with San Francisco’s Tenderloin Technology Lab, which provides computer and Internet access plus instruction to disadvantaged people looking for jobs. Because most jobs require online applications, people struggling with keeping a roof over their heads are often shut out of the job market. The lab is a collaboration among St. Anthony Foundation, San Francisco Network Ministries and the University of San Francisco. Beginning in 2001, USF was providing computers and other support to the two organizations’ separate computer labs. As demand rose with the economic downturn in 2008, USF collaborated with the two organizations to open a combined Tenderloin Technology Lab. The lab now serves a hundred people a day.

Last Thursday, I dropped into the Tenderloin Tech Lab as the collaborating organizations were unveiling an updated space. Rev. Stephen Privett, a Jesuit priest and president of the University of San Francisco, described the collaboration among UCSF, St. Anthony Foundation and San Francisco Network Ministries as three legs of a stool. “Without the three legs, the stool doesn’t stand. We can get a lot more done together than we can separately.” I chatted with Craig Newmark, founder and customer service representative, of craigslist, which supports the lab. (Yes. Craig’s business card includes both titles.) Craig praised the lab for delivering real results to real people. “One thing you learn doing customer service is what’s real,” he insisted.

Shifting from competing to collaborating can create substantial value for non-profits and the people they serve. “It involves putting down our egos and saying we can do this better,” according to Cissie Bonini, director of programs for St. Anthony Foundation, which began feeding San Francisco’s needy in 1950. And the private sector can take a cue from this non-profit collaboration. When we put our egos aside, we can share more, internally compete less—and create far greater value.

Recasting Knowledge Management

Collaboration is shaking up the once-staid field of Knowledge Management (KM) as enterprise social media and interaction play an increasing role. The premise of KM is that an organization’s intellectual capital or “intangible” assets comprise its greatest value and that therefore the organization must manage these assets.  Through the 1990’s, KM gained traction with the growth of data networks, the evolution of database technology and the increasing premium placed on information.

KM has traditionally supported command-and-control organizational cultures and structures in which the organization seeks to gather, retain, unlock and control its resources. And often believing that data drives knowledge, organizations have pushed to populate data repositories. Enterprise blogs and wikis have added an unstructured element to creating and capturing knowledge. As social media takes hold in organizations, KM practitioners are rethinking their craft, integrating social media and collaborative tools into their frameworks, and recasting KM as embodying collaboration. The goal is to broaden KM’s appeal and, in particular, engage younger team members.

“I define knowledge management as information management and collaboration,” insists Katrina B.  Pugh, author of Sharing Hidden Know-How (Jossey-Bass, 2011). Kate, a KM consultant and former vice president of knowledge management at Fidelity Investments, believes gathering data should take a back seat to sharing information. “It’s much more about improving those interactions than populating those repositories,” she explained during a compelling conversation recently.

People often use the terms social media and collaboration interchangeably. Social media describes a category of tools that can be used to collaborate. In The Culture of Collaboration book, I define collaboration as “working together to create value while sharing virtual or physical space.” It’s quite possible to create no value while using social media. It’s also possible to create substantial value. And considering the current excitement over these tools, I asked Kate whether there’s a downside to social media when it comes to KM. “It’s losing the person-to-person interaction,” she quickly responded. By person-to-person, Kate means voice, video and face-to-face encounters. I suggested these real-time encounters have a more “three-dimensional” quality. Kate agreed. “The best social media interactions are the ones that follow a conversation,” she noted.

Conversation, in fact, is at the heart of Kate’s approach to KM outlined in her book. She calls the approach "Knowledge Jam." The idea is to transfer knowledge from “knowledge originators” to “knowledge brokers” through facilitation, conversation and translation. A facilitator, either an outside consultant or internal team member, jump starts the Knowledge Jam during a series of structured 90-minute sessions.

I raised two issues with Kate:

1. Many knowledge originators are “go-to” people who hoard information
2. Is a facilitator necessary?

Absolutely, Kate agrees, knowledge originators may hoard. That’s why “there must be something in it for them [to share knowledge],” Kate explains. And that something is that “in a shifting environment, they need to learn the new playing field.” In other words, to remain relevant and keep their jobs, Kate believes knowledge originators will trade their knowledge for new context and skills. What about the need for a facilitator? Yes, Kate says, getting the conversation going between knowledge originators and knowledge brokers requires a facilitator.

I get that a facilitator can jump start Knowledge Jam, but ultimately organizations must share knowledge and collaborate naturally. The problem with consultants as facilitators (full disclosure: I’m a consultant) is that when they step aside, the organization can easily revert to previous behaviors. The problem with internal facilitators is their perceived and, at times, actual lack of neutrality. For collaborative organizations, sharing must become part of DNA. And KM is part of that equation.

As KM evolves to fit with more collaborative organizational cultures and structures, the term knowledge management also needs updating. Management suggests hierarchy and command-and-control. How about knowledge collaboration (KC)?