Can you recall the most inspiring professional collaboration you've experienced and what made it thrive? When this question arose in a workshop years back, I struggled to articulate specifics, as did others. I realized that our discourse on collaboration often remains vague and abstract. Our focus on competitiveness in business, research, and education over the last century has left us with an idea of collaboration still underexplored.

Collaboration still seems invisible, ungraspable, like a breeze of wind. We witness only its effects—be it swirling leaves, the surge of waves, or shattered flower pots on our balcony. What lingers is its impact, whether a rewarding project milestone or the sting of a failed startup

Despite experiencing it daily, the outcomes of collaboration often appear to us more haphazard than systematic. Even scientists continue to struggle with defining collaboration clearly, and we are still challenged to explain phenomena such as how a group of ordinary people can outperform experts in problem-solving.

Discovering different types of "collaboration" was a great doorway to a more systematic understanding. By interviewing inter-divisional collaborators during my doctoral research, working in the hierarchical-free space between business divisions, I've found three distinct types:

1. Co-ordination involves activities aimed at exchanging value, such as updating each other on subproject progress, aligning deadlines, assigning tasks, or sharing general knowledge updates.

2. Co-operation entails pooling efforts for a defined period to achieve a familiar goal, such as collaborating on software implementation or working with a consultant to develop a business case.

3. Co-creation involves jointly producing something unique that couldn't be achieved individually, where both the goal and the means to achieve it are uncertain. Examples include participating in a startup venture, developing a new technological solution, or entering a new market or client segment together.

Different types of collaboration demand distinct trust experiences to thrive. In essence, I discovered that coordination is a low-risk type of collaboration that requires a trusting experience that is easy and quick to enable. On the other hand, co-creation requires a much deeper, more profound trust experience that takes more time to build and sustain over a longer period of time. (I will discuss these trust experiences in more detail in a separate blog post. This differentiation can help tackle common causes of partnership failures, like communication breakdowns and trust deficits.

A doorway to more successful and efficient collaboration engagements. Even on a modest scale, this differentiation can yield significant achievements. Personally, it reshaped my collaboration approach. For example, I never thought I'd be able to collaborate with someone I'd never met before or have a face-to-face interaction to build trust. However, I learned that if there is a one-time task and the process is clear (coordination), I can confidently hire a freelancer through one of the freelancer platforms without any face-to-face contact. And even if a task needed to be worked out together, a live conference call was actually enough to establish a longer period of successful collaboration for those types of tasks. However, when it came to co-creating something new, managing it through transactional email ping-pong (as these freelancer platforms are programmed to do) was not successful or sufficient.

Moving from haphazard to conscious collaboration management. At a larger scale, tailoring management approaches to these collaboration types minimizes failure risks and enhances success odds. For instance, for efficiency-driven projects like process management enhancements (coordination), a traditional functional project management method suffices, allowing for independent task coordination over time. Conversely, for projects like CRM software implementation (cooperation), integrating dialogue platforms such as sounding boards is crucial. For ventures like developing a new jet engine or forming new alliances post-merger (co-creation), fostering collective thinking involving key stakeholders is paramount.

Understanding collaboration types can save both costs and lives. In our latest book, co-authored with strategic management expert Prof. Dr. Günter Müller-Stewens, we found that project failures often stem from a lack of awareness about collaboration types and a mismatched management approach. For instance, Berlin's new airport debacle – the type of co-creation - was using a rigid, coordinative model for operations, which led to drastic cost overruns and delays. In the tragic case of the Boeing MAX, lives were lost due to management treating an engine upgrade as a known problem (co-operation type), rather than recognizing it as a new aircraft development (co-creation), ignoring pilots' warnings and failing to provide necessary training.

Thanks for helping us differentiate between types of collaboration! In our daily routine, everything seems to be called "collaboration"—from seeking assistance via an app to founding a startup together. When we say, "Let's collaborate," it's like saying, "Let's build a house"—some envision a forest hut, while others picture a skyscraper. Moving beyond the surface and specifying the kind of "house" we intend to construct can become game-changing. I can think of three scenarios where this clarity can lead to immediate, transformative power:

• In meetings: Clearly defining the collaboration goal for each meeting can yield immediate benefits. If it's solely for knowledge exchange (coordination), don't require everyone to attend in person. Reserve in-person gatherings for cooperation or co-creation sessions. Failing to differentiate can lead to meeting fatigue and decreased attendance when collective thinking is truly needed.

• In transformation projects: Adjusting project setup and governance for collaboration or co-creation may initially slow progress, but involving relevant stakeholders early on accelerates implementation, significantly reducing the risk of failure.

• When programming digital processes and features: Recognizing the level of collaboration and trust needed in digital programming can swiftly enhance user experience and relationships. While most functions are coordinated, problem-solving or co-creation situations can't rely on email ping-pong, which hampers trust. The ability to differentiate and program for dialogue is crucial.

Let's develop our appreciation for our unique gift of human collaboration. Understanding the different types of collaboration is crucial in developing and mastering this gift. By learning to differentiate between them, we become more sensitive and able to master and use our collaborative environment. Just as the indigenous people of the North Pole have fine-tuned their senses to their environment, leading them to master different snow seasons, I believe that increasing our sensitivity to collaborative partnering environments will enable us to perceive and understand the nuanced elements essential to their success.

Eva Bilhuber Galli

*) About this blog series

In this blog series*, I'll share my five most surprising insights from over a decade of research and consulting on business collaborations. By letting go of outdated beliefs and offering new ways of thinking, I aim to provide leaders, HR professionals and consultants with a fresh, thought-provoking perspective - one that allows us to elevate our human power of co-creation into a networked ecosystem environment. For all curious minds who believe that there is still more to be discovered and that it is possible to evolve our human collaboration into higher forms.

Part #2: To co-create, be ready to challenge your beliefs about trust