The fundamental difference between the information revolution and the previous ones is that it deals with invisibles/intangibles – software being an obvious, easy example. I think this invisibility brings a strong degree of uncertainty about where the boundaries of specialisation are – both in the team dynamic and in the continuum of knowledge worker evolution.

Where collaboration works is where the goal is clear, or at least where the ‘production cycle’ of knowledge is clear, such that there is no visible downside to sharing knowledge. Fundamentally, it’s about relationships: which is (stereo)typically a subject that the most powerful knowledge workers know least about.

I remember, about 20 years ago, joking with my then boss about “7-year-old football”. He asked me what I meant and I replied: “Haven’t you seen seven-year-olds play football? They all run around in a big pack surrounding the ball.” Somewhere between the ages of seven and ten children learn that football is much more fun (and they win more) if they specialize and collaborate.

Now there are some knowledge “teams” that play seven-year-old football, but, in my experience they are few and far between (I say “teams” because it’s arguable if you can even call such a group of people a team). They are also short-lived, because they tend to get beaten or replaced by real teams.

And to another point: you must have something singular (idea/person/thing) to collaborate with.

On the one hand I find myself trying to decide when to invest in patenting a new brand that has not yet even experienced the test of it’s first event, and on the other hand, keen to create a collaborative platform via a shared website to support others who want to do their own versions of the show, but within a kind of consistent framework (like with franchising).

But without trademarking and without the discipline and clear consequences (removing the right to benefit from ‘the brand’) for those who choose to dumb down or spoil the collaborative vision, how can collaboration work when the players are dispersed, and the project they are working on lacks the clarity of a new open source software development?

Democracy – when done well – is all about collaboration. When King Arthur sat at the Round Table, he was no longer King but part of a collaborative group, with a shared vision and values of conduct.

In our modern world, perhaps it is the lack of clear vision and the lack of shared values that makes collaboration so often fail. Successful collaborative work is democracy in action. Management culture without true democratic processes and inspired vision will always be a sham.

Creative people have a distinct tendency to egocentrism, contraindicating collaboration. We only collaborate when we have to, and the dynamics can be, well, dynamic. Being in a band is a pressure cooker of competing egos forced together to produce something none could create alone. When it works, it’s heaven on earth. When it doesn’t, which is most of the time, the product is worse than the individuals could do alone.

It’s a long run from musician’s antics to an enterprise of brainiacs, but I’m convinced there’s a similarity. Creators, by nature, think quite highly of themselves.

So now, instead of needing seeds or steel, we use our knowledge to make things of value. But it’s the making, not the knowledge, that creates value.