James Robertson has an initial model of collaboration, based on the idea that you have to form the capacity, then build the capability, and then create a strategy around how it fits into your organization.
I've seen a number of discussions lately that all say the same thing: jumping immediately to a solution is often a recipe for disaster, even when it's the "right" solution. The problem, of course, is that people want to know that you can fix the problem or that you have the best way to implement a specific kind of project. And how better to prove that than to show them THE solution?
Maybe there are better ways - but they require that you (the "expert") have a much stronger foundation in the how's and why's and the circumstances around why such solutions might be worthwhile. Rather than diving into the "solution," establish why such a solution is interesting, establish where the organization is in terms of readiness, and then walk with them through the process of devising a sensible solution. People that follow various change management approaches might see some familiar themes here. James' model is an attempt to build this framework around the idea of collaboration.
... Within an organisation, it’s easy to get caught up in just a few aspects of collaboration, leaving big holes that impact on short and long-term success. How do we ensure we’re looking at all the necessary elements of collaboration?
While sitting in an airport on the way back to Australia, a overall model for collaboration coalesced in my mind, bringing together all the different aspects of collaboration. This is still in its infancy, but I thought it would be useful to share it, and to get some feedback.
A model: three tiers of collaboration
Two links in a row to James Robertson. I guess I'm catching up with his blog.