Articles

  • Seven Steps to The Culture of Collaboration

    My new book, The Bounty Effect: 7 Steps to The Culture of Collaboration, has received two favorable reviews: one in Publishers Weekly and the other in Library Journal. Both reviews focus on the 7 Steps: Plan, People, Principles, Practices, Processes, Planet and Payoff.

    I’m delighted that both reviewers understood the book’s premise that businesses must abandon obsolete organizational structures designed for the Industrial Age and replace them with infinitely more valuable collaborative structures suitable for the Information Age. Leigh Mihlrad of the National Institutes of Health reviewed The Bounty Effect for Library Journal. “Rosen declares that while the control method might have worked in the Industrial Age, it does not work in today’s Information Age,” according to the review. Mihlrad concludes with the Library Journal's verdict: “For those in positions to bring about organizational change, this book provides many useful examples.”

    The Publishers Weekly review highlights my point that The Bounty Effect is by no means limited to corporations. “Rosen argues that collaboration moves well beyond organizational boundaries, as it applies to neighborhoods, communities, and government,” according to Publishers Weekly.  “Collaboration creates greater value, enhances achievement, and produces sustainable business models; the question then becomes how quickly can an organization free itself from the Industrial Age and operate to its maximum capacity in the Information Age.” The sooner an organization starts the seven steps, the faster it can migrate from command-and-control and maximize value through collaboration

    Categories: , , , , , ,
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

  • BMW, Toyota and Collaborating with Competitors

    They compete in the marketplace, but now they’re also collaborating.

    BMW Toyota CollaborationBMW and Toyota have announced they will collaborate in two areas: the companies will share costs and knowledge for electric car battery research, and BMW will supply diesel engines to Toyota. Toyota owns the luxury brand, Lexus, and therefore BMW and Toyota directly compete in the luxury car segment. Both companies have a significant collaboration track record.

    In The Culture of Collaboration book, I describe how BMW and Toyota create value by collaborating internally and with business partners. The preface, which you can read here, reveals how my visit to the BMW design center in Munich some years ago sparked the book.

    So why would two competitors collaborate? Collaborating makes sense within enterprises and with partners, but the marketplace requires pure competition. Right?  Well, that depends.

    Collaborating among competitors makes sense when the collaboration:

    1. Creates value for both parties
    2. Begins with structure and clarity
    3. Involves non-differentiating processes

    Clearly, the BMW/Toyota collaboration nails number one. “We think that this collaboration will allow for development of next-generation batteries to be done faster and to a higher level,” Toyota Executive Vice President Takeshi Uchiyamada said at a news conference. Both companies will share the costs of battery development. 

    Toyota will reportedly use BMW’s 1.6 and 2-liter diesel engines for cars sold in Europe beginning in 2014. This is reportedly the first time Toyota has procured an engine from a competitor. According to a story by Yoshio Takahashi and Kenneth Maxwell in the December 2, 2011 edition of the Wall Street Journal, the collaboration will reduce BMW’s engine production costs per unit by increasing volume. So, value creation is at the heart of this collaboration.

    What about #2, structure and clarity? Based on what I know of BMW and Toyota and their approaches to collaboration, chances are this effort involves much of both. In any collaboration among competitors, both parties must establish boundaries for collaboration at the outset. Most importantly, the competing collaborators must determine use and ownership of existing and jointly-created intellectual property. Far fewer problems arise when business unit people, engineers, marketing folks, lawyers and others from both companies hash out these concerns rather than simply handing off the issues to lawyers to hash out in a vacuum.

    Regarding #3, I’ve found that collaboration among competitors works best when the effort involves eliminating redundancy in non-differentiating processes. These are typically under-the-hood processes that are not part of a company’s market or product perception.  Two companies that each make hot sauce might use the same bottling equipment. Two newspapers in the same market might use the same printing presses. Entire industries participate in consortiums for purchasing, saving each competing company substantial money. These shared, non-differentiating processes are invisible to the customer. 

    Engines are invisible to all but the most die-hard car enthusiasts, so collaborating on this process arguably fits the bill as non-differentiating. Typically, car batteries have nothing to do with the vehicle perception in the marketplace. In the case of electric cars, though, the jury is still out whether the battery is invisible to the consumer. The technology is in its infancy, and therefore the market consists primarily of early adopters. These consumers are more techno-savvy, realize the lithium-ion battery is intrinsic to the product’s technology and performance, and therefore may place a heavier emphasis on the battery in their purchase decisions.

    So, it remains to be seen whether battery research and development is non-differentiating for BMW and Toyota. Nevertheless, if both companies can save substantial money on development and bring vehicles to market sooner and customers perceive and actually get better electric vehicles, this collaboration will prove successful.

    Categories: , , , ,
    Tags: , , , , , ,

  • MIT Technology Review Featuring The Culture of Collaboration

    Technology journalist and former Wall Street Journal reporter Lee Gomes and I had a thought-provoking chat earlier this week about collaboration. Lee was interviewing me for a question-and-answer style profile in the MIT Technology Review. The Review was capping off a series of stories about collaboration with the interview on The Culture of Collaboration book. I’m glad that the editor accurately summed up my perspective in the headline: "Collaborating Takes More than Technology."

    You can read the article here.

    Lee did a good job playing devil’s advocate. Among the issues and questions he raised: “Command and control might not be pretty, but it gets things done. Couldn’t an overemphasis on collaboration paralyze an organization?" I responded this way:

    "What paralyzes an organization is when management compromises value by failing to tap ideas, expertise, and assets. What also paralyzes an organization is when requests for decisions languish in in-boxes rather than hashing out issues spontaneously. Paying a few people to think and paying everybody else to carry out orders creates far less value than breaking down barriers among silos and enabling people to engage each other spontaneously."

    Categories: , , , ,
    Tags: , , , , ,

  • Every Worker is a Knowledge Worker

    Management consultants, technology vendors, and human resources departments often segregate workforces into “knowledge workers” and everybody else.  In a collaborative organization, every worker is a knowledge worker. Every team member contributes, shares knowledge, and participates in making decisions, whether he or she is loading crates, designing products, servicing customer accounts, creating tactical marketing plans, or determining long-term strategy.

    My current column for Bloomberg BusinessWeek.com entitled "Every Worker is a Knowledge Worker" describes how organizations can desegregate the workforce. You can read the column here.

    Categories: , , ,
    Tags: , , ,

  • Creating Collaboration Takes More than Technology

    Decision makers often think collaborative tools will create collaboration, and they're perplexed when results elude the organization. Technology extends and enhances–but rarely creates–collaboration. My current column for BusinessWeek.com describes what organizations need besides technology to make collaboration happen. You can read the column here.

    Categories: , , , ,
    Tags: , , ,

  • Collaborating with Salespeople Provides Unfiltered Information

    Hierarchy dies hard in many organizations, so breaking down barriers among levels can prove particularly challenging.

     

    Team members must feel it’s culturally acceptable to engage senior leaders on the fly, and likewise senior leaders must feel culturally comfortable reaching out across the organization to connect with front-line managers, factory workers and salespeople. This gives leaders access to real-time, unfiltered information. In The Culture of Collaboration book, I write about the Dow Chemical Company’s collaborative culture and the collaborative leadership approach of Dow CEO Andrew Liveris. In a compelling interview by Susan Daker  in the Monday, January 25 edition of the Wall Street Journal, Andrew describes how Dow taps its salespeople for real-time intelligence about customer needs.

     

    Wisely, Dow recognizes that the role of salespeople goes beyond addressing customer needs and closing deals.  Dow salespeople collaborate with Research & Development and senior leaders to ensure that products meet customer needs. This may sound like a no brainer, but countless salespeople from many companies have told me that marketing, R&D and senior leaders have little interest in their customer insights. In such organizations, an “us and them” attitude develops between salespeople and management. And therefore the organization loses opportunities to gain real-time intelligence that would otherwise create value.

     

    For years, salespeople have been underutilized. After all, they’re the eyes and ears of an organization. They can also be an early warning system for market shifts and product issues. Good salespeople understand their customers’ businesses, challenges, and industry trends. Isn’t that information important to R&D and senior leadership? Absolutely! In fact, companies pay dearly for similar intelligence and information from consultants and researchers.

     

    In a collaborative organization, senior leaders reach out to salespeople for unfiltered, real-time information and input into decisions.  Salespeople, in turn, engage and collaborate across leadership levels and across functions, business units and regions. Presence-enabled tools enhance this by letting people find each other and collaborate in real-time, enabling salespeople to share intelligence with senior leaders, R&D and others. But tools can only enhance and extend collaboration. For salespeople to contribute to product development and strategy, the organizational culture must support informal, spontaneous interactions regardless of level or title.

    Categories: , , , ,
    Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

  • It Takes More Than Sharing Information to Prevent Terrorist Attacks

    More than eight years after lack of collaboration among intelligence agencies contributed to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the United States, the Central Intelligence Agency is facing new allegations that it failed to share vital information that could have thwarted last week’s attempted bomb attack on Northwest flight 253.  

    ODNI Logo President Obama yesterday scolded the United States Intelligence Community for “a systemic failure” because intelligence agencies apparently never shared all of their information about the suspect before he boarded the plane and was ultimately subdued by passengers. The National Security Agency reportedly had information that Al Qaeda operatives in Yemen were preparing a Nigerian to commit a terrorist attack against the United States. And the Central Intelligence Agency had reportedly met with the father of Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab , the suspect, at the U.S. Embassy in Nigeria. The suspect’s father apparently informed the CIA of his son’s radicalization. Had there been greater collaboration among agencies, President Obama has said that the suspect’s name would have appeared on the so-called No Fly List, which likely would have prevented him from boarding the Northwest plane.

     

    According to the lead story in today’s Wall Street Journal, officials of the National Counterterrorism Center which acts as a clearinghouse for terrorism data, have indicated that the CIA failed to share all of its information with other agencies.

     

    The problem is that terrorists are often highly collaborative, but the Intelligence Community has lagged behind in embracing collaboration. The 911 Commission Report recommended a reorganization of the 16-agency Intelligence Community under a Director of National Intelligence. The report also recommended increased information sharing among agencies to thwart future attacks. Subsequently, President Bush signed the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 which established the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), the National Counterterrorism Center, and called for “open-source intelligence.” In 2007, ODNI implemented a 100-day plan and a 500-day plan for Integration and Collaboration among agencies.

     

    As part of the new commitment to collaboration, the Intelligence Community adopted A-Space, modeled after MySpace and Facebook, so that analysts could share information across agencies. The community has also adopted Intellipedia, a cross-agency wiki.

     

    On the sixth anniversary of the terrorist attacks, I gave a speech to the Intelligence Community. The speech was sponsored and hosted by ODNI. In the speech and during subsequent meetings with senior intelligence officials, I insisted that it would take much more than tools and a top-down collaboration initiative for the Intelligence Community to actually collaborate. Our research at The Culture of Collaboration® Institute indicates that in any organization, people may buy into collaboration as a concept, but in practice it’s a totally different story. Therefore, reducing fear of collaboration and changing behavior are crucial to cultural shift.

     

    Clearly, intelligence requires protecting classified information just as corporations must protect trade secrets. But aside from keeping outsiders from obtaining information, many career intelligence officers have been conditioned to embrace secrecy within their community. This fosters information hoarding, intra-agency rivalry and intelligence failures. It takes more than new tools and technologies and more than even an act of Congress to abandon this deeply-engrained conditioning.

     

    Sharing information among agencies is undoubtedly necessary, but thwarting attacks requires much more. Even if agencies make information available to one another, people need to know how to act on that information.  Therefore, I will reiterate here two major points on which I’ve counseled senior intelligence officials:

     

    1) Favor on-the-fly decisions over chain-of-command decisions.

    2) Encourage spontaneous interaction over scheduled encounters and meetings

     

    The White House and intelligence officials can talk ad nauseam about sharing information. If, however, analysts and other intelligence personnel are expected to run decisions “up the flagpole” and are inclined to schedule meetings rather than connect with colleagues and hash out issues on the fly, it will remain difficult to thwart attacks.

     

    As I noted in The Culture of Collaboration book, "the in-box culture is dead." And if asynchronous information sharing persists without the necessary real-time cultural components, intelligence failures will continue. The cultural shift necessary to prevent security lapses like the one aboard Northwest flight 253 involves moving beyond information and data sharing—and embracing real-time collaboration.

    Categories: , , , , ,
    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • 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.

    Categories: , , , ,

  • Telehealth Revisited

    Telehealth is back on radar screens of policy makers, health care professionals, engineers and marketers. As we rethink healthcare economics and delivery systems, technology advances are enabling new approaches and better execution of old approaches. Telehealth can enable healthcare access for underserved populations including rural areas, inner city areas, isolated regions, developing countries, and prisons.

     

    Michigan Corrections Polycom  Telepresence creates new opportunities for virtual consultations to approximate face-to-face encounters between providers and patients and among providers. Tandberg and Polycom, established vendors in  telehealth, now offer telepresence for healthcare. Polycom announced last month at the American Telemedicine Association 14th Annual Meeting and Exposition that the Michigan Department of Corrections is using Polycom telepresence for everything from tele-psychiatry to tele-nephrology.  Cisco’s Internet Business Solutions Group hasCisco HealthPresence developed HealthPresence, which combines Cisco TelePresence with patient health data captured by connected medical devices such as stethoscopes and vital signs monitors.

     

    In the late 1990’s, I conducted research in telehealth and wrote the “Personal Telemedicine” column for Telemedicine Today magazine. The magazine allowed me to write about every aspect of telehealth with an emphasis on how the tools and delivery mechanisms impact people. The name of the column played off my first book, Personal Videoconferencing (Manning/Prentice Hall, 1996). Since many of the telehealth topics I researched then are now re-emerging, I’ll share one column that’s still available online. It’s called "Twenty Minutes in the Life of a Tele-Home Health Nurse," which appeared in the December, 1997 issue of Telemedicine Today. You can read the column here.

    Categories: , , , , ,

  • Telepresence and Formality

    Cisco’s use of TelePresence last Monday to announce its Unified Computing System sparked an interesting reaction on the New York Times Bits blog. The Times republished the blog post in today’s print edition.

     

    Cisco Unified Computing Launch The post by Ashlee Vance takes aim at Cisco for the “scripted” feel of the 14-site TelePresence session for reporters and analysts. You can read the story here. Some reporters who showed up at Cisco headquarters for a news conference were apparently frustrated that Cisco CEO John Chambers was in another suite upstairs rather than in the same room with the media. Vance also writes that the question-and-answer session that followed the two-hour event also felt scripted in that Cisco apparently muted microphones and prevented follow-up questions.

     

    OK. It’s time for a discussion of formality and telepresence. First, let’s separate the event from the technology. I did not attend the event, so I can’t comment about its execution. However, I did participate in a launch event and news conference last October for Cisco’s public TelePresence suites. You can read about it in my October 15, 2008 post.

     

    Like last Monday’s Cisco event, executives at the October 15, 2008 event were in a separate TelePresence suite from reporters and analysts who were in the same building. This worked well, because the local group was relatively small, and each participant had a seat at the TelePresence table. Also, the approach was particularly appropriate in that the subject of the event was TelePresence itself. During the event, which linked about six sites, I had no problem asking follow up questions and engaging in an extended dialogue with Cisco senior leaders.

     

    In contrast, holding a 14-site news conference like the one last Monday certainly can increase logistical issues and reduce the question time per reporter. The benefit, though, of using TelePresence for the event is that it significantly increased media participation globally, so that a reporter in Asia could gain the same access as a Silicon Valley-based reporter for The New York Times—access to Cisco CEO John Chambers and other participating CEO’s including Paul Otellini of Intel, Joe Tucci of EMC, Paul Maritz of VMware, and Bill Green of Accenture.  

     

    Despite increased access for geographically-dispersed journalists, there was clearly a disconnect between Cisco and at least some reporters who showed up at Cisco headquarters expecting a same-room news conference. Here lies the problem. Some reporters may have felt that Cisco was insensitive to their needs, and these reporters failed to grasp the benefits and potential of TelePresence. Consider the potential power of this tool…people coming together regardless of level, role or region and interacting in an immersive virtual environment that approximates across-the-table, same-room interaction. Some reporters missed this, in part because of formality.

     

    This disconnect highlights the need to ensure that the use of telepresence mirrors in-person interaction and preserves in-person etiquette.  Reporters on deadline get restless and frustrated if they must wait two hours before asking questions, and they always want the option to ask follow-up questions. Otherwise, they feel controlled at best and muzzled at worst.

      

    It would be unfortunate, though, if New York Times readers confused any concerns about event execution with the technology itself. The greatest potential for telepresence and TelePresence (the spelling with capital letters is Cisco’s brand of the technology) is for informal, spontaneous interactions. Currently, telepresence is used primarily for scheduled meetings and events. The most collaborative organizations use real-time, interactive video for on-the-fly encounters. I profile some of these organizations and describe specific ways companies can create value through informal, spontaneous interactions in my current book, The Culture of Collaboration.

     

    Since the publication of my first book, Personal Videoconferencing (1996), my team and I have been conducting research on—among other aspects of collaboration— using visual communications for spontaneous, informal interactions. Recently, I formalized this research effort by establishing The Culture of CollaborationÒ Institute. My future books and derivatives will leverage the Institute’s research. If your organization is interested in supporting our work, let me know.

     

    Organizational culture, environment and business processes are key to enabling spontaneity and informality. Tools including telepresence—used effectively—are critical enablers in extending and enhancing an informal, spontaneous culture. I highlighted the role of informality in collaboration during an interview with CNBC’s Donnie Deutsch on the “Collaboration Now” primetime special. You can view a video clip here.

     

    Telepresence is a key element in collaborative enterprises and will soon become available at much lower price points for consumer use. Without informal, spontaneous uses of the tool, vendors run the risk that people will view telepresence as a tool only for formal, scheduled events and meetings. The real value of telepresence is enabling on-the-fly encounters, sort of a virtual water cooler.

    Categories: , , , ,

ABOUT

Email Me

CATEGORIES