.

In Part 1 of this post I discussed the roles of a facilitator in helping teams function in a technology-based workspace that was specific to document co-creation (as opposed to web-based training).  The basic message is that all projects need to lead with a consideration of facilitation followed by the process development. When a team takes thinks from facilitation to process, the facilitation tasks will inform the technologies chosen and used for any given project.  In summary, the facilitation tools for technology-based collaborative working include 1) a place to organized and store documents, electronically,  2) a word-processing tool for creating and editing documents, 3) communication tools to ensure that the co-creators can keep each other informed and discuss ideas, 4) a calendar, task-list, and possibly a spreadsheet to track progress.  The process design challenge is to apply the appropriate tools to ensure strong facilitation.  There are three basic frameworks for using technology to manage facilitated co-creation of documents.

.

Existing Infrastructure: Many teams co-create documents with little thought to facilitation and simply try to maximize the agency’s existing infrastructure.  Typically this includes email, folders on the computer server and perhaps a shared calendar or task list.  These tools enable communication, central storage and perhaps even centralized facilitation but this scenario is rudimentary at best and requires careful design considerations for a team to function effectively in this process.  The weakness of this toolset is that work flow is linear and sequential where documents move from one team member to the next and hopefully all changes along the way are properly captured.  Further stressing this system is when all team members don’t share the same use of the tools.  Invariably distributed teams have at lead one team member who “defects” from using the standard software tools in favor of another. In one of my recent jobs we had different team members using Microsoft Outlook, iGoogle tools, and Thunderbird coupled with an open source calendar.  In this scenario facilitation almost becomes command and control with a single person owning and driving rather that facilitating the process.

.

Free Distributed Tools: Some groups that are split between geographic offices have adopted the use of a mix of online tools that offer free versions.  For example, I know of one group that combines free versions of online document sharing, a free version of an online Wiki, and a free version of a survey tool.  While such a mixing of tools might support distributed collaboration, having multiple technologies, each hosted by different companies, requires significantly more thought to ensure coordination and synchronization of the tools.

.

Third-Party Paid Services: There are a number of technology vendors that offer an integrated suite of tools that include Wiki’s calendars, forums, blogs, task-lists and spreadsheets.  Some of these suites are enterprise-based (you host on your server) or web-based and available on a subscription model.  The upside to a third-party service approach is the integration that creates a seamless working environment.  The obvious limitation of using third party tools are that technologies that are proprietary offer more constraints because you are “locked in” to a single service and, secondarily, you  are dependent upon the economic viability of the company.  Backing up data becomes critical when using third party tools.

.

Hopefully it is obvious that I am over-simplifying what is a much more intensive assessment the available technologies.  While I am not a huge fan of Wikipedia there is a pretty good discussion of online collaboration alternatives.  My point is to create a backdrop for how an agency might approach the conversation of marrying facilitation with technology in document creation.  So how does an agency approach the creation of a technology-based workspace that supports facilitation?

.

Assess Your Needs: The first step in the process is to assess you needs.  This assessment includes: a) mapping your current work process (a diagramming exercise is a great tool), b) assessing the technology skills of team members, c) honestly reflecting on your internal technology capacity and budget, and d) exploring new opportunities for technology integration.  Based on this assessment you will then be prepared to map your work process to technology options.

.

Develop Collaboration Standards: Once you have created a plan for how you will design a functional technology-based collaborative work environment, the next step is to develop collaboration standard to ensure a consistent practice.  These standards should be based on core facilitation functions previously outlined and address: a) the general roles and responsibilities of the facilitator and team members, b) the specific performance expectations associated with the use of the technology standards, and c) tactical facilitation guidelines related to managing assets, document control and knowledge capture.

.

Train and Implement a Pilot: The third stage in the process is to train staff members on the use of the technologies and standards.  Ideally this is followed by the implementation of a pilot project to test the functionality of your new work process.  Based on the evaluation of the pilot implementation your process and collaboration standards can be refined.  One note of caution, when conducting your pilot, you want to choose a low stakes project. Don’t bet the development of a competitive bid for substantial new revenues on the pilot implementation of your new technologies and standards

.

In closing, I would reiterate that facilitation and process is core to your business practices.  Using technology strategically is no longer optional. The strategic facilitation of a technology-based development processes will benefit the distributed team and increase organizational effectiveness.  While technology tools may proliferate it is important that organizations employ systems thinking to keep a technology strategy married to facilitation and process

.

As always, your feedback is welcome.

.

.