There is no dearth of tools today which aim to improve organizational productivity. We have new task managers, newer co-creation tools, and newest collaboration networks. They provide increasingly sophisticated mechanisms to consume information “on their platforms” that when widely adopted will lead to productivity heaven.
The inherent assumption though is that a single tool can encompass the widely varying modes of information creation and consumption. So if as a user, I want to create information in a certain structure, my co-workers have to consume information via the tool I choose.
The result? Information around projects and expected outcomes are fragmented across different services. Say I am developing a new feature, and have signed up a few initial customers for the beta program how do I see the health of the release and the issues faced by the beta customers in a single view? Is it surprising then that I have “collaboration issues”?
In my experience as a product manager, a common refrain was that sales does not understand the product development process, while sales wondered if product and engineering have any understanding of what is important to customers. Some of this is surely because in a world of fragmented information, it is very difficult to go beyond your team and your tool.
This information is not scarce, and likely you will have access to it if you want but it is not even remotely accessible. Issues of collaboration, at their core are issues of information accessibility. If by some magical means, I get to see all relevant information and participate in all relevant conversations, I not only become more productive but I also become more collaborative.
Information accessibility for individuals and team productivity are therefore just two sides of the same coin.
