Collaboration enjoys an almost untouchable reputation, but it has a cost: time, decision-making energy, compromises. Before opening up a working table it pays to ask whether the context will make it productive — and the answer depends on two variables you can observe in advance.
Alignment — how aligned the organisation is around the need for the project and how it should be executed. It reflects the capacity to create shared objectives.
Competition — the level of contention over ownership: how much stakeholders fight over control and recognition.
The practical rule
The two axes are not equally controllable, and this is the heart of the model. Alignment can be built: communication, awareness and training can steer the organisation towards shared objectives. Competition is largely structural: the contention over ownership depends on the organisation's overall structure and culture, and influencing it from below is often out of reach.
A counterintuitive rule follows: collaboration is a resource to be dosed, and maximising it is rarely the goal. In the right-hand quadrants it often pays to collaborate as little as necessary — reducing the surface of collaboration to what the project actually needs, shielding it from the contest.
Frequently asked questions
What does the ALCO model measure?
A context's collaborative potential, along two axes: how aligned the organisation is around the need for the project, and how much competition there is over ownership.
What are the four quadrants?
The relay race (ideal), the picnic (manageable), the cross-country race (hard) and the tug of war (very hard).
What is the practical rule?
Alignment can be built, competition is largely structural: that is why it pays to calibrate how much collaboration a project can afford.