The method · The Continuum of Collaboration
“Working together” isn’t one thing.
Sending an update, supplying information, lining up a shared deadline and jointly designing a solution are all called “collaboration”. Each needs a different level of collective capability. Treating them as the same is where most collaboration efforts quietly go wrong.
The six stages
From communication to Constructed Collaboration.
Each stage describes a habit, the default way people work together, not a single meeting or handoff.
C1
Communication
People exchange information.
C2
Contribution
People routinely supply useful work or input, not just information.
C3
Coordination
Activities and timing are habitually lined up.
C4
Cooperation
Shared goals, roles and rules are the norm.
C5
Collaboration
Teams routinely create integrated outcomes together.
C6
Constructed Collaboration
The interfaces between people and teams are designed and maintained, not just used.
Watch
Beyond cooperation.
A short video on why cooperation isn’t the end point, and how deliberately designed connections between teams take an organisation further.
“Maturity isn’t how far up the continuum you sit. It’s whether the mix fits what you do.”
Every organisation uses all six at once, across different relationships and different days. What matters is that important, recurring interfaces get structure to match how much they carry.
Getting the level right
Two ways to get it wrong.
The skill is matching the level to what each interface carries, and moving it deliberately when that changes.
Under-engineered
Too little structure
An important, recurring interface left at simple information exchange. It carries more weight than an informal arrangement can bear, and it depends on particular people staying put.
Over-engineered
Too much structure
A trivial, one-off interaction pushed all the way to a designed agreement. That’s effort a simple email would have covered.
Invest once, then relax
Specificity is an investment, not a standing cost.
Agreeing what “meets specification” or “high quality” actually means may take a properly collaborative conversation. Once it’s settled, day-to-day exchanges about it can drop back to simple communication. You only reopen it when something changes enough to break it, such as a new product, a new system or a new regulation.
A heavy meeting load is often a signal: an interface where that investment hasn’t been made yet, with live negotiation standing in for an agreement nobody wrote down.
From belief to evidence
What separates C5 from C6.
From the outside, Collaboration and Constructed Collaboration can look alike. At C5, good collaboration is a belief. It’s often true, but it’s carried by particular people and their relationships, and it leaves when they do.
At C6, the conditions for collaboration are explicit: what each party needs from the other, and how the arrangement is managed. There’s evidence the organisation can point to, inspect and improve.
That’s what turns collaboration from a soft skill into a system of management, for the interfaces important enough to justify it.
What mature interfaces look like
Less friction, not more paperwork.
- Teams can explain what they provide to each other and what they need in return.
- Key terms and completion conditions are defined, not assumed.
- Agreements are built by the people involved, not imposed from outside.
- Interfaces are reviewed when priorities, roles or systems change.
- Exceptions improve the interface instead of triggering blame.
- New starters understand key relationships without relying on what’s in someone’s head.
Reading your organisation
Build a profile, not a score.
The useful question isn’t “which stage are we?”
It’s what mix you have across an organisation, division or function, and how that compares with what your important interfaces need. The gap worth closing is between your current mix and the right mix, not the gap to the top.
Origins
Where the model comes from.
The first five stages come from Chirag Shah’s research on how people seek and use information together, set out in Collaborative Information Seeking (2012). His work builds on Malone and Crowston’s coordination theory, and on Denning and Yaholkovsky’s observation that coordination and cooperation are weaker forms of working together than collaboration.
Alex McDonnell adapted Shah’s five stages for management, and added the sixth, Constructed Collaboration.
Start a conversation