Collaboration at Workplace: Importance and Advantages

INTRODUTION

When two individuals collaborate with each other and starts to share their thoughts and opinion to accomplish a mutual target, then that’s called Coordination. It is essentially collaboration seized to a shared objective. Cooperation is frequently seen as a corporeal blending of two or more individuals to accomplish a goal. Along the advancement and innovation in technology, for instance, high speed internet, electronic file sharing, electronic mail and video forum for conferencing, all these change in course has made coordinated effort a more propitious method for pursuing works accomplished. Organizations spend critical measures of monetary and human capital on building new offices and revamping more established offices with an end goal to expand profitability and enhance interchanges (Stryker, Santoro, & Farris, 2012).

Individual Collaboration in the working environment is an indication of powerful group as it tackles the best out of at least two people together. Productivity is a basic piece of a group and an essential part of the work environment (Forte & Flores, 2014). Working environment joint effort will guard everybody from additional heap of work as the work gets disseminated uniformly. Random conversation which is focused around the assigned goal can have a huge positive impact on the successful accomplishment of that goal (Phelan, Barlow, & Iversen, 2006).

Collaboration is essential in the work environment as it unites individuals from various foundations and levels of involvement (Stein-Parbury & Liaschenko, 2007). In this position paper, we attempt to strengthen our claim about the importance of collaboration between employees at workplace by providing evidence from the literature and our own experience in the form of case study. We’ll share our experience of observing a large project that was completed successfully by the group of individuals who had strong coordination among them.

LITERATURE REVIEW

In the modern environment of large organization, cooperation among scattered colleagues has turned out to be crucial, particularly for worldwide associations; subsequently, analysts have researched different strategies for improving correspondence and group execution. A study conducted by Burke (Burke, Aytes, Chidambaram, & Johnson, 1999) contemplated the electronically upheld meeting methods of eye to eye, scattered synchronous and scattered asynchronous, looking at such conduct components as union, administration viability, co-appointment fitness and sociology-specialized measurements like social nearness, equity of interest and time. The aftereffects of this examination discovered that there was no distinction in cohesiveness, social nearness and execution among the three gathering modes; in any case, authority and collaboration were better in up close and personal gathering spaces.

PROBLEM STATEMENT

The main goal of this work is to quantify the viability of a collaboration among teams or individuals, who plan to successfully complete a project with the relational trust between colleagues. The primary research question was to what degree this collaboration enhanced the efficiency of the work done and the trust build among colleagues amid coordinated effort of these colleagues. The outcomes will give knowledge into the impact of this collaboration on the variables that measures the importance of collaboration in a team individual.

PERSONAL EXPERIENCE

We decided to conduct a case study with the volunteer student from the IT department of University. The students were divided into two teams of 5 individuals. They were given a training session so that they can understand the goal of the study and assigned tasks. One group was supposed to do the task without individual collaboration and the other one could have strong collaboration between the individuals. The main goal of the project management training session was to make students aware of the issues that might occur when dealing with “genuine” customers in “genuine” projects and was vigorously centered around cooperation and critical thinking.

We carefully observed the two teams while they performed the task. The team that had strong collaboration among individuals completed the task quicker and in a more efficient manner. We carefully observed the behavior of both teams during the task was performed and enlisted the traits of successful team as follows:

Division of tasks and commitment to the goal: The class was exceptionally concentrated about delivering excellence item, and not per-possessed by solitary outcomes that may have interfered with this target.

Relationship: The colleagues felt the commitment they had towards their peers and realized that the performance of each colleague is very important for the team to complete the task successfully. And, for this reason they were invariably helping each other during the time of hardship.

REFERENCES

• Burke, K., Aytes, K., Chidambaram, L., & Johnson, J. J. (1999). A Study of Partially Distributed Work Groups. Small Group Research, 30(4), 453–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/104649649903000404
• Forte, A. M., & Flores, M. A. (2014). Teacher collaboration and professional development in the workplace: a study of Portuguese teachers. European Journal of Teacher Education, 37(1), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2013.763791
• Phelan, A. M., Barlow, C. A., & Iversen, S. (2006). Occasioning learning in the workplace: The case of interprofessional peer collaboration. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 20(4), 415–424. https://doi.org/10.1080/13561820600845387
• Stein-Parbury, J., & Liaschenko, J. (2007). Understanding collaboration between nurses and physicians as knowledge at work. American Journal of Critical Care : An Official Publication, American Association of Critical-Care Nurses, 16(5), 470–7; quiz 478. Retrieved from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17724244
• Stryker, J. B., Santoro, M. D., & Farris, G. F. (2012). Creating Collaboration Opportunity: Designing the Physical Workplace to Promote High-Tech Team Communication. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 59(4), 609–620. https://doi.org/10.1109/TEM.2011.2170995