I have written several times about the technologies and processes that enable collaboration (talking about the former here for SiliconAngle in 2023 and appropriate tools here for Biznology’s blog in 2021). My reason for writing about this now is having known and worked around and for Dylan Tweeny for many decades, I was interested in a report he released today about the state of editorial content. In my SiliconAngle post, I describe some of the more successful collaboration efforts down through history, including those working as codebreakers at Bletchley Park WWII and the team behind the 2015 Ford Mustang redesign.
A large part of Dylan’s report deals with the collaborative effort that is involved in producing content in this AI era, based on a self-selected survey of 169 respondents.
In my many years creating content, I have seen plenty of situations where great content is edited into some uninteresting pablum by a group assigned to review my content. Now, I am not a member of “every word out of my word processor is precious” school. But I often cringe when an editor – or a gaggle of them – start reducing the value of my content rather than adding to it.
Part of the problem here is understanding where and when the “collaboration” actually begins: is it at the first light of an assignment where 15 stakeholders weigh in on a Zoom call what their first draft will be? That is unworkable, as many of Dylan’s respondents say with the “too many cooks” comments. Or when someone in the workflow wants to back up and start from another POV that wasn’t recognized initially.
Many people characterize collaboration as a team sport. However, the analogy breaks down when we look more closely. In sports, you have definite rules of play, which is mostly missing in content creation. You also have well defined roles — also MIA. You have leaders that delegate specific tasks (at least the better ones do), but this often is hard to define in the content creation biz. So yes, you need a team. But the idea that “everyone thinks they are an editor, and thinks they are good at it” is just wrong-headed. Eventually, the ref must blow the whistle and play resumes. A better analogy would be a “team of rivals” (apologies to Doris) that have to work together and make up the roles, rules, and who is in charge as they go along.
I don’t think all collaboration all the time is necessary at all stages of the creation of content. At some point, an individual author needs to synthesize all the (often conflicting) points and produce something which tells the story and connects with the eventual audience. This is why AI in its current incarnation is a total fail. In writing my stories I have had interviews of my sources that directly contradict each other, or at least at first blush. Dive deeper, and the devil is in the details. That is what makes my experience valuable — yes, you can assign a 20-something to do the initial interviews, but they would probably miss these details. So finding sources and knowing the questions to ask are key ways I collaborate,
Certainly, we need to adopt better project management tools and use them more effectively. Dylan’s report shows that many content creators still use simple things such as GDocs, with a light seasoning of Grammerly. (A side ironic note: GDocs didn’t have real-time collaboration features when it was initially created, until Google purchased that technology and incorporated it into the service.) There is still plenty of content which is created by having serial edits being passed back and forth via email. That is still the most common PM method that I see being used in my clients. Maybe I have the wrong clients <G>.
Part of the challenge here is that having true editorial management is a lost art. Remember when our pubs had copy desks to manage their workflows? When was the last time a PR agency had something similar? Now that anyone can push a button and post something online, it means that managing this process involves saying “don’t push the publish button quite yet.” Most of the big b2b tech sites that I have worked for in the past couple of decades have a “post first, copy edit and fix later” philosophy. That is no way to manage anything. When I worked for ReadWrite back around 2012 and ran a bunch of their b2b websites, I had one writer who refused to acknowledge that he worked for me. He was a free agent, and damn the torpedoes, full steam ahead and how dare I mess with his golden prose? That was an impossible situation but was tolerated because he wrote (a lot of) good stuff.
Another challenge is relying on meetings as a collaboration path, either virtual or in place. That requires skill, something we don’t all have to bring the best collaboration forward from all participants.
Sharing is more than caring. And the real challenge is that collaboration usually carries what is called a “work tax” because the tools mentioned take the creator out of the context of creation and divert the heat of the creative workflow by adding an explicit sharing step. And it is ironic that the people who would know tech better are often the ones paying the highest tax.
Mark Gibbs did some research here. IHe asked ChatGPT to turn your commentary into a workflow that avoids the problems discussed. There’s also a follow up question about how to handle political pressure to include more stakeholders than are optimal.
[m]
Collaborative Editorial Workflow
Define Roles & Project Setup
Assign an Editorial Lead: One person owns overall direction and final decisions (e.g., “Editor-in-Chief”).
Identify Core Contributors: Limit to three primary roles—Author, Subject-Matter Editor, Copy Editor. Avoid adding extra reviewers unless absolutely necessary.
Choose a Dedicated Project Management Tool (e.g., Asana, Trello, or a CMS with built-in workflow).
Create a single project/card for each article.
Record role assignments, deadlines, and version history in that tool.
Kickoff & Research
Kickoff Briefing (10–15 minutes max)
Only the Editorial Lead, Author, and Subject-Matter Editor attend.
Agree on story angle, scope, and any key sources. No “15 stakeholders on a Zoom call.”
Research & Interviews
Author (or a designated researcher) gathers interviews and source material.
Record interviews and notes in a shared folder (e.g., cloud storage linked from the PM tool).
If two sources contradict, Subject-Matter Editor flags areas needing deeper fact-checking—but does not rewrite the draft at this stage.
First Draft
Single-Author Synthesis
Author writes the first full draft in a collaborative document (e.g., Google Docs or the CMS’s editing interface).
No simultaneous reviewers—only the Author edits until the draft is “complete.”
Built-in Version Control
Keep only one “live” draft; do not circulate multiple versions via email.
Save dated snapshots (e.g., “Draft_2025-06-10_v1”).
Consolidated Feedback Loop
Assign Exactly Two Reviewers
Subject-Matter Editor (focus on technical accuracy, completeness of sources)
Copy Editor (focus on grammar, style, consistency)
Use Inline Comments Only
Reviewers add comments and suggestions directly in the document (not as separate files or email attachments).
Limit feedback to 1–2 review rounds; each reviewer has a firm deadline (e.g., 48 hours).
No “Everyone’s an Editor”
If additional stakeholders request changes, they must route requests through the Editorial Lead, who triages and decides whether to involve a reviewer.
Author Revision
Single Consolidation Pass
Author addresses all inline comments in one pass; do not create a new draft unless major restructuring is needed.
Mark comments as resolved once addressed.
Final Read-Through by Editorial Lead
Editorial Lead performs a quick pass to ensure the Author has incorporated feedback and that there are no lingering conflicts.
Final Approval & Scheduling
Lock the Document
Once approved, move the draft to a “Ready to Publish” state in the PM tool and disable further edits.
Set Publish Date
Editorial Lead schedules the publish using an editorial calendar (built into the CMS or shared calendar).
Post-Publish Corrections (If Needed)
Separate “Fix Later” Board
If minor edits are identified after live publication, log them on a “Post-Publish Corrections” board rather than reopening the main draft.
Batch Small Edits
Copy Editor or Author addresses these in a single batch, then re-publish.
Minimize Meetings & “Work Tax”
Restrict Meetings to Critical Milestones
Only hold a meeting if the Author cannot resolve a direct conflict between two sources or if an unexpected scope change arises.
Prefer Asynchronous Communication
Discussions, decisions, and small clarifications happen via the PM tool’s comment threads or threaded chat (e.g., Slack).
Limit Tool Overhead
Use lightweight, purpose-built tools (e.g., integrated GDoc comments or CMS comments) rather than forcing authors into heavy project-management systems that pull them out of writing.
Key Points Avoiding “Too Many Cooks”
Clear single decision-maker: The Editorial Lead has final sign-off.
Explicit roles & caps on reviewers: Only two reviewers per draft.
Structured handoffs: No more than one review round per role; avoid iterative email passes.
Locking after approval: Prevent endless edits by disabling further changes once approved for publication.
This workflow creates defined stages, assigns precise roles, uses a central tool for feedback, and enforces a hard limit on reviewer count—eliminating the “everyone thinks they’re an editor” problem and the serial email edits that dilute content.
—
I followed up with “When there’s substantial political pressure to include more stakeholders, what’s the best way to handle it?” …
Designate “Stakeholder Liaisons”
Instead of inviting every interested party into the draft, appoint one or two trusted liaisons to gather and consolidate feedback. These liaisons represent broader groups and channel input through a single point, preventing review bloat.
Set Clear Review Windows
Communicate a firm deadline for stakeholders’ input (e.g., a 48–72-hour window). After that window closes, no new feedback is entertained. This lets you acknowledge political realities while avoiding endless loops.
Use Tiered Feedback
Tier 1: Core reviewers (Author, Subject-Matter Editor, Copy Editor) work per the existing workflow.
Tier 2: Stakeholder liaisons submit high-level concerns—only major objections or omissions, not line-by-line edits. Tier 2 feedback arrives after Tier 1 is complete, so it can be folded into one final review.
Empower the Editorial Lead as Arbiter
When a stakeholder’s request conflicts with editorial vision or timeline, the Editorial Lead vets it against project goals. If a suggestion cannot be accommodated without derailing scope or quality, the Lead provides a concise rationale for declining or deferring that change.
Document a “Governance Charter”
Create a brief, written guideline (1–2 pages) that outlines:
Which types of changes require stakeholder input (e.g., legal disclaimers, brand messaging).
Which decisions lie solely with the Editorial Lead.
The escalation path for unresolved disagreements.
Circulate this charter at project kickoff so everyone agrees on boundaries up front.
Offer a “Final Comment Period” Before Publication
When pressure mounts, schedule a very short, final comment window (e.g., 24 hours) solely for last-minute, critical flags. Warn stakeholders that only show-stoppers will be considered, and all other feedback stands for future editions.
By bundling stakeholders’ voices through liaisons, enforcing strict deadlines, and giving the Editorial Lead explicit authority, you respect political realities without collapsing into “too many cooks.”
I teach the Capstone class at Columbia SIPA (required for all Masters students), which is a consulting project for an external client. This group of 6-8 students has to self-organize and reach and write an in-depth report in one semester!
I idea is to have the team do some self-examination on roles and strengths. This is where I start:
https://www.belbin.com/about/belbin-team-roles
I had a further conversation with Dylan about this topic — which he posted on his blog here.