Towards Purposeful Collaboration in E-Business:

A Case of Industry and Academia

John Perkins

and Sharon Cox

Newman College of Higher Education, Birmingham, B32 3NT, UK

Department of Computing, University of Central England in Birmingham, B42 2SU, UK

Abstract. Information and Communication Technology (ICT) helps to remove

barriers and improve mechanisms that support collaboration in e-business. This

paper proposes a model of purposeful collaboration analysis that helps identify

the extent to which ICT supports collaboration. It is argued that the ICT

components of e-business are necessary to support collaboration but in

themselves are often insufficient as enablers of collaboration. The model

encourages the examination of issues left unsupported by ICT and allows more

focused consideration of further initiatives that might be applied to improve

purposefulness of the collaboration task. The case of a retail manufacturer in a

long term e-business collaborative exercise with an academic institution is used

to illustrate the model. Concepts from the social practice literature are

identified that might contribute to a hybrid approach to addressing the gap

resulting between generic technology and situated business applications.

1 Introduction

The literature on e-business emphasises the role of ICT as an enabler and facilitator

of collaboration [15] and is rarely challenged. However, there are few attempts to

evaluate the extent to which collaboration is achieved through ICT. A discussion of

the meaning of collaboration within a specifically e-business context depends upon

the theoretical model of collaboration chosen. This paper describes a process that

encourages the iterative examination of the value added to collaborative practice by

ICT. This process adopts the model of collaboration proposed by theoreticians and

practical analysts of social practice theory. The foundation to this school of thought is

that the concept of organisational culture is most clearly expressed through the

recurrent activities and work practice that evolve and emerge from individuals and

groups striving to achieve expertise within a working community [18]; [11].

According to this theoretical model, specific examples of task activity within

individual working environments is the appropriate domain in which to study

collaborative practice. This orientation allows a process to be proposed that

juxtaposes the purpose of individual collaborative tasks with the appropriate ICT

tools to facilitate this task. Once task and facilitating ICT are identified, a qualitative

evaluation is possible of the extent to which ICT adds value to the collaboration.

Perkins J. and Cox S. (2005).

Towards Purposeful Collaboration in E-Business: A Case of Industry and Academia.

In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Requirements Engineering for Information Systems in Digital Economy, pages 51-60

DOI: 10.5220/0001421400510060

 SciTePress

Limitations in ICT facilitation are then exposed and consideration is given to the

potential of of complementary socially oriented approaches. The paper concludes by

proposing a general, practice-centric approach to evaluating the role of ICT in

purposeful collaboration.

2 Definition of Collaboration

The notion of collaboration is a broad one. Webster’s dictionary definition gives two

meanings: ‘to work together, especially in a joint intellectual effort’ and ‘to cooperate

treasonably, as with an enemy occupation force in one’s country’ (www.websters-

online-dictionary.org). The first indicates that the meaning of the term is historically

and socially situated. It implies that the partners’ ‘joint-ness’ is equal and that they

share common goals, enjoy equal benefits and wield equal power. These initial

assumptions about the nature of collaboration appear to be contested by much

literature on observed practice in collaborative work situations [17]; [5]. The second

suggests that collaboration has not always occupied high moral ground.

Collaboration frequently appears to contain a strong competitive element. The notion

that collaboration can go too far and become tantamount to ‘fraternisation with the

enemy’ is another common feature of reports on collaborative practice [12]. The term

‘collaborate’ is often used interchangeably with ‘cooperate’. The same dictionary

defines this as ‘to work or act together toward a common end or purpose’, ‘to form an

association for common, usually economic, benefit’ and ‘to acquiesce willingly; be

compliant’. The first two definitions compare closely with the ‘working together’

definition of collaboration, but the third definition reveals the principal difference

between the terms. The implication of deference due and subsidiary status within

‘cooperation’ identifies the essential merit of the alternative term, ‘collaboration’ to

those who reject any overt element of subservience in their role. This paper proposes

an approach to identify the information requirements of such socio-technical systems,

exploring the relationship between ICT tools and collaborative practice.

3 Collaboration in E-Business

E-business systems are now an integral component of modern business (including the

business of education). The purpose of e-business is to handle trading of goods and

services without the need for physical contact between trading partners or agents. It

involves teams of practitioners dispersed geographically, organisationally and

culturally that need to operate as a community in order to enable the technical

infrastructure to work effectively. The traditional face-to-face approach to developing

mutual trust and a shared understanding of the dynamics of the trading system is

rarely available. Instead they develop practice within a technical system overlaid with

socio-cultural rules and driven by the interpretation of corporate and departmental

policy. This is what is referred to here as a collaborative system. Because e-business

systems are becoming so vital, the building and operation of collaborative systems

that support commercial and social purposes is critical.

Communities using these systems are highly dependent upon sharing knowledge

that helps their members achieve the purpose of becoming accepted as effective

practitioners by the rest of their community. In Blackler’s terms they are about

embodied, embedded and encultured knowledge that is located not within individuals,

but distributed amongst a community of practitioners [4]. This reciprocal dependency

between practice and knowledge maintains the criticality of communication, co-

ordination and co-operation [2] in collaborative systems that perform satisfactorily.

Sharing of knowledge is highly dependant upon the establishment of trust within

practitioner communities and allows the community knowledge to be accessed and

contributed to by its members.

A four year action research programme examined the development of collaborative

systems within the UK retail sector. Major supermarkets all established electronic

trading networks and their suppliers were effectively compelled to change their

systems of trading to comply with the technical and operational requirements of these

systems [14]. The structure of the collaborative systems that resulted imposed

considerable differences in the amount of power that the collaborating partners could

bring to bear on other partners [13], however, suppliers willingly assented to become

part of the collaborative trading system as they considered that their position in the

supply chain produced by the collaboration increased their chances of survival within

the market as a whole [14], [6] identified the following critical actions that need to be

addressed before engaging in collaborative systems:

 Agree mutually beneficial outcomes from collaboration at the start of the

collaboration: The results of this programme reflect reports of an imbalance of

power and benefits in collaborative partnerships in the USA [3]

. Risks are

associated with both being included in and excluded from collaborative

relationships.

 Control the proliferation of collaborative links: As retailers developed their

collaborative systems, the overhead for trading partners became unmanageable.

 Establish consensual understanding of data: As collaboration relies on written

communication, an agreed understanding of terminology used is essential. It is

often difficult for data definitions to be agreed within an organisation and these

problems are compounded across organisations.

 Address the change in skill profiles demanded by changes to working practices:

As staff profiles change, with more reliance on negotiation in written

communication, training issues need to be identified.

 Revise business processes to support e-business: Improving one part of a business

process can only be successful if the other processes can support the improvement.

Collaboration may improve the efficiency of order receipt but needs to be matched

by improvements in order processing and distribution to avoid bottlenecks.

4 Collaboration in Academia

Academic-industrial collaboration can be interpreted as potentially beneficial from

one of a number of standpoints. Firstly, from the viewpoint of national policy, it

appears to provide a cost-effective means of embedding government policy into the

Higher Education sector. Secondly, from the viewpoint of those sponsoring research

for the purpose of increasing national wealth and academic prestige, it provides a

framework for developing research partnerships. UK government policy is to

encourage the structural embedding of collaboration between industry and the

Universities. However, at the level of academic and industrial practice there appear to

be some generic problems. Short-term common goals that are valued by both

academic and industrial partners are difficult to identify [10]. Government research

funding programmes frequently address this with explicit performance measurement

requirements. However, the implicit interpersonal relationships that provide the more

tacit components of collaboration, such as mutual trust, are not so frequently assessed

in such frameworks.

Overall, academic-industrial collaboration appears to have lacked the drive from

survival or competitive pressures that typically lead industry to collaborate. In

general, and with the possible exception of some practitioner-led research

programmes [16], there has been an absence of bottom-up initiatives for academic-

industrial collaboration. Government policy requirements have insisted that such

collaboration will take place and this has led to enforced top-down collaboration in

Universities when they bid for major research projects. But top-down pressure for

collaboration tends not to be effective [16]. Such top-down collaborative initiatives

tend to result in situations where the weaker partner drives the initiation of the

partnership in contrast to industry-industry partnerships where the stronger partner

provides the lead. This appears to result from a need for lower profile institutions to

find a place for themselves in serving the more elite, preferred institutions in order to

gain revenue and reputation.

This reflection on the impact of policy on how e-business practitioners interact in

collaborative systems has been examined at a strategic level. This is useful for

identifying macro influences on e-business systems but is remote from the operational

practice that enabling e-business systems are intended to operate. In order to identify

information requirements it is necessary to resolve specific activities where practice

exists. This emphasis upon recurrent practice as the foundation upon which

organisational culture sits is the subject of the next part of this paper.

5 A Practice-Based Model of Collaboration

A variety of tasks are called collaboration. Collaboration comprises many different

practices and policy will impact upon them in different ways. The taxonomy

proposed here will provide a means of refocusing on this interaction. The notion of

collaborative practice is distributed over all shades and varieties of practice. Smith

(2001) identifies categories specifically for the research area of higher education, and

this has a usefully simple, if not fully explanatory function for collaborative practice

in general. His categories comprise: corporate partnerships, team collaboration and

inter-personal collaboration. This maps to the notion of practice at the: macro level

(national/organisational), meso level (local community of practice) and micro level

(individual and small group). The macro level addresses the areas of strategic

consideration of overall policy within the operation of educational schemes. The

micro level addresses the activity of individual tactical educational practice. Finally,

the meso level bridges the gap between these two points of the practice continuum by

considering the activities of closely co-operating groups, or communities of practice

that interact dynamically with other communities. This provides a means to structure

discussion on how these categories of collaborative practice act and interact.

A simple model of tasks involved in collaborative practice uses examples taken

from a four year action research project in a soft drinks manufacturing organisation.

Interviews were conducted with an academic partner and an industrial partner to a

joint project [7]. This data was triangulated with data taken from observation of

collaboration between academic and industrial institutions. This provides a

complementary way of integrating parts of these three models in order to look at

specific examples of what is meant by collaborative practice. The model is built upon

a scale where one end is occupied by practice that is predominantly controlled or

influenced by academic institutions (for example, teaching and learning practice) and

the other end by industrial influence (for instance, applied research and development

projects). The model shows groupings of tasks observed occurring as an outcome of

ongoing collaborative projects. Mapped to these task categories are examples of ICT

tools and processes that were used in these areas of practice to contribute to

collaborative task execution. Alongside these mappings are ‘gaps’ that appeared in

the extent to which the technology were considered by the interviewees to have

facilitated achievement of the tasks

This simple categorisation provides a rudimentary taxonomy of this example of

collaborative practice observed between an academic and an industrial institution, its

groups and its individuals. The development from initial types of collaborative

practices to more mature forms is characterised by the taxonomy proposed in figure 1.

Increasingly intensive forms of collaboration, such as that from A1 to A3, or B7 to

B9, involve more developed levels of collaborative ability, motivation and cultural

affinity to collaborative action. Development of the collaborative practice in this way

is accompanied by a concurrent development of a number of attributes of the

developed collaborative system. These include time invested in the collaborative

arrangement, by a higher level of trust amongst the participating practitioners, by an

ability to identify benefits accruing from the partnership, by holding some goals in

common and by having begun to institutionalise, or ‘tempered’ the relationship in a

way in which interpersonal tensions are released sufficiently to enable participants to

be able to perform in the joint practice that emerges from the collaborative work

system [7]

Figure 1 Taxonomy of Collaborative Practice in an Academic-Industrial Project

Educationally oriented

Purposeful Collaboration

Categories

A1 Industrial

practitioners - guest

lectures of categorical

information

e-lectures,

virtual learning

environment

Aligning

information to

other contexts

of use

B1 Academics as

trainers / advisors in

categorical information

A2 Industrial

practitioners relate case

studies for problem

solving

e-lectures,

virtual learning

environment

Consensus of

important

problem

B2 Academics relating

case studies for problem

solving to industry

Micro level

A3 Industrial

practitioners as

members of academic

workshops

Visualisation,

modelling

software

Ability to

function as a

team member

B3 Academics as

members of industrial

project team

A4 Groups of

industrial practitioners

giving access and

information to

academics

Email,

groupware,

electronic

message boards

Developing

common

ontology of

information

B4 Groups of

academics giving access

and information to

industrial staff

A5 Groups of

practitioners give

access to research to

academics

Grid

technology,

distributed

databases

Develop ways

to work with

communities

B5 Groups of

academics provide

access to research to

industrial staff

Meso Level

A6 Groups of

industrial practitioners

sharing resources and

outcomes with

academics

Email,

groupware,

standards for

technology use

Developing

balanced power

relationships in

resource sharing

B6 Groups of academic

staff share resources

and research outcomes

with industrial staff

A7 Industrial

institutions providing

access to academic

staff / students for

placements

Security

management

procedures

Operational

policy

Negotiation of

extent of access

to resources

B7 Academic

institutions provide

access to industrial

institutional staff for

personal development

and training

A8 Industrial

institutions providing

access and facilities to

academics for

educational projects

Security

management

procedures

Tactical policy

Negotiation of

extent of access

to projects

B8 Academic

institutions provide

access and facilities to

industry for educational

projects

Macro Level

A9 Industrial

institutions sharing

resources/outcomes

(joint venture)

Strategic

policy

Negotiation of

extent of access

to rewards

B9 Academic

institutions share

resources/outcomes

(joint venture)

The following approach to exploring collaboration is proposed:

1. Define the benefits and outcomes for each partner.

2. Define the level at which the collaboration is to take place and categorize the

collaboration in the taxonomy.

3. Assess the role and contribution of ICT in enabling the collaboration in terms

of process, communication, knowledge sharing and trust building.

4. Identify the ‘gap’ remaining for purposeful collaboration.

5. Agree changes to policy, process and/or skill profiles to address the issues in

the ‘gap’ identified.

For example, a manufacturer approached an independent corner shop suggesting

that an on-line collaborative system would be a more efficient method of placing

orders, replacing the current weekly telephone order. The benefits to the manufacturer

included a reduction in transaction costs. The benefits to the shop would include 24x7

flexible ordering. The proposed collaboration can be positioned at Meso level 4 as

the manufacturer is offering to provide access to information about stock and pricing

levels, enabled by ICT. However, this requires the shop staff to have confidence in

the security and reliability of the system and confidence in their own abilities to use

the system. This was addressed by significant investment by the manufacturer in the

training of the store staff. Telesales staff with whom the store already had a rapport

trained the store owners on their premises and sat next to them as they entered their

first orders. Meso level 4 suggests that purposeful collaboration requires the

development of a common ontology and this was a significant issue in this particular

case. The change from telephone to on-line ordering initiated changes in process for

both trading partners, new skills were needed and new policies had to be put into

place to deal with situations such as wrong/incomplete orders entered/delivered. In

this case, in the ordering process, transaction costs decreased for the manufacturer but

increased for the store owner; ordering was ‘more flexible’ but more time-consuming

to enter orders and find out about special offers. This led to a reduction in the

quantity of products purchased. ICT supported the transaction process but was

insufficient as an enabler of collaboration.

Figure 1 shows recurrent practice representing the outcome of organisational

culture [1], a concept widely recognised as critical but which often acts to effectively

stall analysis of knowledge and information requirements analysis and hence, the

appropriate use of technology to deliver these. Simple tasks in some relatively

immature areas of collaboration, for example, A1, A4, A7 appear to be effectively

supported by ICT tools with highly efficient outcomes. Gaps here appeared to be

concerned with effectiveness within the operational context. Complex talks in

relatively mature areas of collaboration on the other hand appeared to show that ICT

tools have both less efficiency and effectiveness in supporting purpose. Social issues

predominate in the choice of supporting technology and in the gaps left between this

technology and overall achievement of task purpose.

This practice based model suggests that support for e-business requires an

iterative, recursive approach to ICT application that identifies and situates social

science based associated activity for e-business support to address these error gaps.

The next section identifies concepts from within social practice theory that might be

relevant to such gap management.

6 Closing the Gap in Supporting Purposeful Collaboration

The developing area of social practice theory sets as its main focus the study of

organisational culture through the medium of the work practices that comprise and

result from it. It covers an eclectic body of research and provides useful tools for the

analysis of work practice identified through the taxonomy developed above.

Blackler’s taxonomy of knowledge is a significant move away from the traditional

concept of knowledge as abstract, disembodied, individual and formal [4]. Rather

than studying knowledge as something individuals or organizations supposedly

possess, the attribute of ‘knowing’ is seen as something that they do. This is used to

analyse the dynamics of the systems through which knowing is accomplished. With

this reorientation of approach, ‘..knowing in all its forms is analysed as a

phenomenon which is: (a) manifest in systems of language, technology, collaboration

and control (i.e. it is mediated); (b) located in time and space and specific to

particular contexts (i.e. it is situated); (c) constructed and constantly developing (i.e.

it is provisional); and (d) purposive and object-oriented (i.e. it is pragmatic’[4].

Blackler uses activity theory [8] to identify this knowledge situated within

communities of practice. Engestrom’s model of socially distributed activity systems

explores the dynamics between agents, such as the users of collaborative systems,

objects of activity, such as trading processes, and the community that this trading

takes place within. Analysis is then carried out into how these elements are mediated.

Mediation may take place by implicit or explicit rules, by roles and divisions of

labour and by instruments and technology such as their information systems. This

approach to identifying task dependencies is particularly useful in the micro area of

task analysis identified in figure 1. At this micro level of practice activity theory

treats ICT as a particular mediator of action and as such provides a valuable approach

to complementing technology implementation to the community which uses it.

At the meso, or intermediate level of task analysis shown in figure 1 the concern is

more about the use of technology by professional groups. Using Blackler’s taxonomy

of knowledge, professional groups use embedded and encultured knowledge within

categories of e-business tasks and support of collaborative efforts in these tasks need

to address these knowledge types. The concept of communities of practice and its

associated idea of legitimate peripheral participation [11] is now a well established

approach to understanding working groups. The example of academics and industrial

workers in collaborative projects might be considered as a ‘community of

communities’. Dynamic social models such as this help to bring more effort to the

consideration of the detailed social structure of collaborative efforts in real situations

and this effort is reflected in a more considered evaluation of the purposeful

deployment of ICT resources.

Finally, at the macro level, tasks involve policy and strategy formulation. The

means of deployment of ICT resources to facilitate such tasks is less explicit.

Strategic ICT such as data mining, visualisation aids and web based agents are often

suggested for tasks in this area. However this area of practice is primarily concerned

with entrepreneurship, innovation, power and negotiation. Examples of purposeful

support for these processes lies with the concepts within such commentators as

Foucault (1979) whose domains surround issues of power, knowledge and ethics and

provide an insight into macro levels of collaboration that might inform decisions on

how ICT might be employed as a facilitating element in a particular context.

7 Conclusion

Considerable progress has been made in the use of ICT to remove the technical

barriers to collaboration making it easier to communicate at a distance but this is

sometimes at the neglect of the rationale for collaboration. Providing an easy means

for two people to talk to each other does not mean that they will use it. The purpose

of the particular collaboration, the need for this particular collaboration and the

benefits for both parties in the joint practice involved in such collaboration needs to

be addressed. The proposal of how this practice might be analysed in more detail

involves the devolution of its study to the level of individual task analysis, rather than

identifying aggregated responses to the demands of corporate policy. However, to

avoid an instrumentalist approach, this needs to be carried out as an open system that

recognises the impact of policy and resource effects from elsewhere in the wider

environment. The approach proposed here involves the development of a basic

taxonomy of practice that can be examined as individual phenomenon. The

application of some of the approaches to analysis found within social activity theory

provides a means to analyse the work-based behaviour. This approach provides a

means to better understand the nature of the work, the knowledge associated with it

and the explicit information components that are associated with that knowledge.

Two outcomes have emerged: Firstly, in the specific case of facilitating

collaboration through ICT, the extent to which information systems and the ICT that

delivers them can enable work processes needs to be evaluated. This evaluation

allows social support processes to be identified that are necessary to both take

advantage of, and support those information systems. Collaborative systems are

important to successful e-business systems, which are in turn a vital component of

modern business, but the nature of collaboration is not clear. This is problematical

because practices can turn out to be different from what might be expected from

policy specification and knowledge required by these work practices can be located in

places or media inaccessible to the IS and ICT supposedly enabling them.

Secondly, an approach to improving the ability of collaborative information

systems to support authentic work practice is proposed. This begins by identifying

taxonomies of practice for the specific work situation under examination. It moves

onto evaluate existing and proposed ICT against the local purposes of these

collaborative tasks. Shortfalls or gaps in the extent of facilitation provided by these

ICT tools are identified and finally conceptual tools from social activity theory are

identified in order to better determine the information requirements of systems to

support the collaborative practice. ICT components of e-business are necessary to

support collaboration but in themselves are often insufficient as enablers of

collaboration.

References

1. Alvesson, M., 2002, Understanding Organisational Culture, London: Sage p.175.

2. Bafoutsou, G. & Mentzas, A., 2002, Review and functional classification of collaborative

systems, International Journal of Information Management, 22, pp.281- 305.

3. Bensaou, M., 1999, Portfolios of Buyer-Supplier Relationships, Sloan Management Review,

40(4), pp.35-44.

4. Blackler, F., 1995, Knowledge, Knowledge Work and Organizations: An Overview and

Interpretation, Organization Studies, 16(6), pp.1021-1046.

5. Booher, D.E. & Innes, J.E. 2002, Network power in Collaborative Planning, Journal of

Planning Education and Research, 21, pp. 221-236.

6. Dingley, S. & Perkins, J., 2000, Engaging in Collaborative Systems: Lessons from the Field,

Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems,

Stafford University, UK, pp.424-428.

7. Dingley, S. & Perkins, J., 1999, Tempering Links in the Supply Chain with Collaborative

Systems, in: Proceedings of the Conference on Business Information Technology

Management: Generative Futures, Manchester Metropolitan University, UK.

8. Engestrom, Y., 2001, Expansive Learning at Work: toward an activity theoretical

reconceptualisation, Journal of Education and Work, 14(1)

9. Foucault, M., 1979, Discipline and Punish: The birth of the prison, London: Pergrine.

10. Jones, R. 2002, Restrictive Practices: Critical Reflections on Collaboration, Research in

Post-Compulsory Education, 7(2), pp.165-176.

11. Lave, J. & Wenger, E., 1991, Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation,

Cambridge University Press.

12. Loan-Clarke, J. & Preston, D., 2002, Tensions and Benefits in Collaborative Research

Involving a University and Another Organization, Studies in Higher Education, 27(2),

pp.169-185.

13. Perkins, J., Jorgensen, A-K, Barton, L., Cox, S. 2003, Building Supply Chain Relationships

with Knowledge Management, in: Proceedings of 4th International Conference on

Enterprise Information Systems, Angers, France.

14. Perkins, J. & Dingley, S., 2001, Collaborative Systems Architecture to reduce Transaction

Cost in e-Business: Changing the Balance of Power, in: Proceedings of the 3rd

International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems, Setubal, Portugal.

15. Shuman, J. & Twombly, J. with Rottenberg, D., 2001, Collaborative Communities:

Partnering for Profit in the Networked Economy, Dearborn Trade, Chicago, IL.

16. Smith, D., 2001, Collaborative Research: Policy and the Management of Knowledge

Creation in UK Universities, Higher Education Quarterly, 55(2), pp.131-157.

17. Tett, L., Crowther, J., O’Hara, P., 2003, Collaborative Partnerships in Community

Education, Journal of Education Policy, 18(1), pp.37-51.

18. Wenger, H., 1998, Communities of Practice, Cambridge University Press.