General Thoughts and Rambles, Situational Awareness

Collaborate or Perish

I was reading through Eric Holdeman’s commentary about a new book (Collaborate or Perish – disclosure: Amazon.ca affiliate link) – though he, like me hasn’t read the full book – there is a Q&A with one of the authors and he knows the players.

Eric disagrees with many of the broad-brush statements raised in the Q&A (follow Eric’s blog to the Q&A). He then brings up a good approach that collaboration can only occur after trust has been established – at the individual and organization level. He is correct that establishing this trust takes time – a lot more time than one would think.

Eric’s point about old baggage isn’t lost on the work that I’m lucky enough to be doing with the MASAS team.  We’ve seen barriers fall down in front of us – between groups that we had assumed were working together. Groups that may even have been hostile in the past (baggage) are working together and establishing those critical individual and organization-level relationships. It took a while for us to realize why this is – but Eric’s point about a possible solution, is one that I would say is a mandatory – a “third party neutral party” must be involved.

To me the third party must be there – any system of collaboration that is hosted by a single entity, as good/great as that entity is – will be seen as “their system”. Some groups will join, but many will stand back and stay out for various reasons (past relationships, information ownership, and many others). Others will actively campaign against it either to put forward their own solution or to simply fight the idea.

What we have seen with MASAS is that information exchange will only begin after creating that neutral third-party that isn’t run by any one particular interest – this may be influenced and funded by groups, but it is its own entity with a mandate of neutrality. Further, it needs transparency in its operations and governance. Trust is a hard thing – it takes time to build and it builds slowly. So, to make things work you can’t rush it and you can’t skip steps.

Establishing situational awareness is tough. It gets tougher when multiple agencies are involved. The dynamic of what information is needed changes as each agency has its own focus and context. Adding a trust barrier makes it only harder. Working collaboratively requires that trust but being shown a “trust me – I’m big” type of system isn’t going to get us through that trust barrier.

3 thoughts on “Collaborate or Perish

  1. Jack Pagotto

    Darrell I really like this observation about the importance of having that third party ‘neutral’ partner or ‘system’ (like MASAS) that makes it more palatable for agencies to share info without feeling they are giving up any autonomy or having to “buy in” to another system etc . In fact I like it so much that I’d like to see if we might interest one of our psychosocial experts on multi-organizations to consider doing a short paper on this with us… What do you think?

    I can forward your blog article to see if I can provoke any interest, I would first ask our OR team if they know of a psychosocial a academic that does research on this and maybe do a very short lit review – I bet there is already some theory papers on the ‘neutral 3rd party ‘ effect.

    JP

    • There are certainly some examples of third-party neutral (think Switzerland) parties being the trusted central point. A business example would be the forestry and oil & gas sector in Alberta. The forestry companies, very harsh competitors, collaborated via a company called Silvacom (neutral) to plan out access roads to large forestry areas – resulting in a very substantial decrease in road construction (and the resulting environmental data) – these roads cross over the various forestry company lands an optimize things – while protecting proprietary interests.

      • True – I guess there must be a ton of examples of how the neutral middleman ‘arbitrator’ technique works in acquiring a common solution … In fact the NHL owners and players association fiasco should have gone that route long ago (!) …. I think we’d want to drill in a bit more to examples where the neutral third party system provides an ongoing trusted ‘bridging’ function between disparate systems and includes an element of co-ownership in that each party sees the bridge as partly “theirs”. … Just thinking out loud here but I will test the waters with the psychosocial cluster to see if this merits doing a short article … they live and breathe ‘team dynamics’ science and so we’ll see if they think it is worth a short paper.

        JP

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s