Structured vs. Unstructured Collaboration

Should you structure collaboration? If you’re reading this blog, I’m guessing you’re already a big fan of open innovation and collaboration. You know how it can build ownership over a project and lead to a creative solution to a challenge. But how can you harness this collaboration? You don’t want to stifle creativity by putting rules on the process, yet a free-flow approach may lack focus. So how do you choose, or find a balance between, the two approaches? Let’s first take a look at what each kind of collaboration looks like:

Unstructured Collaboration:

Unstructured collaboration is what we think of when we envision creativity and open innovation. There can be guidelines in an unstructured collaboration session, but there are no strict rules. Participants are left to their own devices to come up with ideas. A ‘blue sky’ session, where team members are able to spew any idea that comes to mind, is a good example of unstructured collaboration. General brainstorming sessions and online collaboration projects are also good ways to see the benefits of unstructured collaboration. Unstructured collaboration is agile and flexible; anything can happen!

The downside to unstructured collaboration is that you risk losing focus. If there is a specific challenge you are trying to solve, you may not get the answers you are looking for from an unstructured session. Team members may come up with great ideas- but they may not solve your specific challenge.

Structured Collaboration:

Structured collaboration means that rules are put in place to help guide the discussions and outcomes. The rules will vary between organisation and project but can include anything you think will help. Some organisations have strict classification rules or restrictions on the types of groups and events that can exist in the organisation. This kind of collaboration may be associated with big businesses, but structured innovation can have a place in many situations. For example, idea competitions have a set of rules to make sure that participants have the challenge framed in the right way. The aim of rules is usually to get a focused solution to the challenge.

The cons of structured collaboration are that rules can limit team contributions. Some ideas may not be welcome and this can be intimidating. This may stop new ideas that seem unrealistic or irrelevant from coming up, even if they may be valuable.

Conclusion:

So what is the best approach for your organisation? Do you want your team to have free reign over the process? Or is it best to have rules in place to keep things focused and organised? It turns out that the best way to manage the process is to have a combination of both. For example, you can keep strict rules about how things should be labled and organised in an on-line system. This will stop you from losing ideas and information, or having duplicate ideas. However you can keep the actual brainstorming process unstructured. For example, if you are running an idea competition you can have rules and structures around the submissions. But when it comes time for feedback, allow an open conversation to help participants grow their ideas.

Employees are most engaged in their organisations when a combination of structured and unstructured collaboration is in use. Finding the right balance for your initiative will be key in getting the best results from your project.

Have you experimented with structured or unstructured collaboration? Which did you prefer to use? Or a combination of both? Tell us about your experiences!