Comments on: Talking and Walking Collaboration

By: John Tenny

John Tenny — Sun, 06 Jul 2008 13:43:05 +0000

We’ve written everything from articles for professional journals to major accreditation reports using the Inspiration Software projected on a screen. Participants ranged from another single individual to up to ten faculty members. We start with developing and arranging the outline, then move in to each item and expand. When the outline is at the advanced draft level, we go to creating the text. Everything is written and edited live and together.
We find that it does not take more time if you compare to one person writing, passing it around for revisions, and more revision, and more revisions. With that approach we never reached the level of quality or consensus that we do with group writing. Two key factors are that the text is projected for all to see and that the process is live.
We have also done the approach of individuals writing sections and the group revising, but the result is not as good. Hard to adjust the ‘individual voice’ to become a ‘common voice’ so the individual sections remain in some ways distinct.
This is being done by a very bonded and trusting group. The text is not owned by any one individual so discussing ways to make it clearer come easy and without defensiveness.

By: Maria Henriques

Maria Henriques — Mon, 16 Jun 2008 22:16:40 +0000

Collaborative or Cooperative learning are the same concept of learning together.
Now I prefere Co- operative learning in a project paradigm.
Agora um pouco de português e um conselho para viajar até ao “ALLgarve”.
Até amanhã!
Good work

M. Henriques

By: Nancy White

Nancy White — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 07:47:32 +0000

Eva, thanks for your stories. I am nodding in recognition both of working with people who are different, and the self awareness and communication to make that collaboration complimentary rather than a battle.

The one thing that amazes me – and shows up even in long term collaborative relationships – is that we are constantly negotiating our identities because our close collaborators help us see ourselves in different ways. It is one of the unexpected benefits that I have accrued in recent years.

By: Eva Schiffer

Eva Schiffer — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 19:07:45 +0000

You would think that it is easiest to have fruitful collaborations with people who are very similar to yourself. But the more I collaborate (with good and bad experiences) I realize that the most satisfying experiences were with people who were similar and different to the right extent. There is something crucial about shared values, quality standards, social courtesy and a certain overlap in knowledge domains (at least enough to basically understand each other).

However, in my nicest and most effective collaborations, people were rather different in work styles: Writing collaboratively with a bunch of creative, exploring “starters” leads to a great mass of wild and inspiring ideas – but to get to a finished product that you can actually share with the rest of the world is so unlikely and a lot of the great ideas will never see the light of day. On the other hand, if you have just the pragmatic, grounded, “finishers” and no one adds some wild-idea-energy to the process, you might be able to produce reliably and in a timely fashion… but the results may not be very inspiring.

So, when I look for people to write with, I am rather honest about what I am good at and where I need support, and I do look for people who have a different profile.

By: Nancy White

Nancy White — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 03:55:56 +0000

Steve, as I read your comment, I was struck by the thought that one piece of the architecture of collaboration is internal – curiosity.

By: steve crandall

steve crandall — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 13:16:05 +0000

I’ve been involved in many solid collaborations. The best, at least for me, are stumbled upon as Cliff notes. I tend to work with people who have very different backgrounds, so I see these as learning experiences. There is a certain depth needed in your own contribution if you are to explain it well as visa-versa. The need to offer this explanation often gives new insight.

The effort required is more than working alone, but the opportunity for new discovery and potentially finding a new friend makes the effort worthwhile.

An observation – there are architectures and cultures that encourage this. I was lucky enough to have been at Bell Labs in Murray Hill when it was a serious organization. Collaboration with people outside of your laboratory was encouraged by the culture (people did invent new fields and these were usually the result of cross organization work). People also tended to keep their offices for decades even as they changed groups so long and circuitous walks were necessary throughout the day. The probability of running into someone interesting you hadn’t seen in a year was high. Much of my best work was ignited by these chance conversations. Serendipitous architecture.

Being open to unusual sources is important. I’ve done enough amateur anthropology (the result of a great collaboration 15 years ago) to realize there are many interesting people who may not have “the right” academic credentials or experience you thought was necessary. You develop a taste in finding people where the idea flow is good and you are happy to be around. Most recently I’ve been thinking and writing about some aspects of energy and the environment with an athlete. The process we used to learn each other gave me a much better sense of how to re-frame my problem. She may not know physics or engineering, but she is very smart, knows how to stop me when things aren’t clear and is good at going beyond my explanations and to cause me to learn.

you never know…

I find collaborations important enough that I set apart time independent of my regular work so there are always projects boiling away.

By: Nancy White

Nancy White — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:44:36 +0000

Cliff, I relate to that experience of JUST FRICKEN DOING IT and communicate along the way, vs plan. What I’ve noticed is working globally, there is a lot of cultural variation. Sometimes it is about surfacing and understanding differences to use them productively (Socialization). Sometimes it is about such detailed planning I feel I am about to lose my mind. Sometimes so loose, I feel like – yes, I’m about to lose my mind.

But no motivation – no collaboration. However, that motivation can be diverse. I may be motivated to collaborate because I want to work with you. You may be motivated on some tangible outcome. We don’t have to have the same motivations, they just have to be aligned. Does that make any sense?

By: Cliff Figallo

Cliff Figallo — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 20:43:50 +0000

So true – there’s more talk and writing about collaboration than actual successful collaboration. Those who cannot do, teach? That’s probably not true here, either.

But I do find that, on reflection, most of my most successful and satisfyingly collaborative experiences were stumbled upon rather than planned. Others with similar interests and I happened to come together around a task we all realized needed to be completed. We acknowledged that among us we held the skills to complete it. There was little in the way of assigning or choosing roles; we simply volunteered to take on the pieces that fell to us and that we knew we were qualified to perform.

What’s to be learned from this? Maybe that shared motivation to get the task done and done well is more important than “making a plan” with a structure and rigidly defined roles. Also that constant communication serves to prevent duplication and gaps. Spontaneous collaboration may take longer to complete once the task is underway, but it saves time in the formal planning and coordination. It may save time in the actual execution if the planning doesn’t fit the skillsets and motivation.

To be completely honest, I’ve also been part of miserable failures that came out of spontaneous collaboration. Best to begin with tested working relationships with your partners.