This piece originally appeared in the Fractured Atlas newsletter on July 15, 2005.
One of the most important strategic questions that arises repeatedly in business is whether to do something yourself or hire an outside party for the job. Theorists talk about “making” vs. “buying” or “insourcing” vs. “outsourcing”. These issues can spark passionate debates, and with good reason: few questions more profoundly determine an organization’s identity, not to mention its prospects for success. In the volumes written on the subject, however, there’s comparatively little discussion of the third, hybrid approach: collaboration. Since that’s the topic of this issue, I thought I’d provide a brief overview of the current wisdom on the subject, as well as some thoughts about how this all applies to the arts.
When to Make and When to Buy
Back in the paleolithic days of capitalism (e.g. the 1970s), growth was achieved through vertical and horizontal integration. This was the age of the lumbering diversified conglomerate: a company that manufactured automobiles might vertically integrate into steel or payroll processing, or move horizontally into airplanes and tanks.
A few relics aside, this strategy has largely gone the way of the dinosaurs. Today companies aim at niche markets and strive for infinite customization. To compete requires speed, agility, and a laser-like focus. The wisdom on insourcing, therefore, is that it should only be done in a handful of cases: 1) when the function is core to the business’s mission or identity (e.g. the design of the aforementioned automobiles), or 2) when the function requires access to intangible assets that must be protected (e.g. if you’ve invented a special kind of steel that makes your car much lighter and stronger, then you’d be justified in smelting it yourself) Anything else should be delegated to the marketplace, where it can inevitably be produced more efficiently by someone who specializes in that specific product or service.
Do the perils of insourcing really apply to the arts, where the goal is aesthetic rather than economic value? Yes - on both a creative and an organizational level. Few young theatre companies don’t dream of one day owning their own space, a romantic notion rooted in idealistic concerns like complete artistic freedom as well as pragmatic ones like scheduling flexibility. The fantasy, however, rarely incorporates the responsibilities that come with maintaining public restrooms, de-icing sidewalks, or negotiating contracts with union stagehands. The typical theatre company is ill equipped to manage these sorts of challenges. Being forced to do so drains money, time, energy, and (most important) focused attention from its true raison d’être: making great theatre.
Likewise, consider what happened the last time you saw a play that was directed by the playwright. If your experience is anything like mine, it was probably well-written, but suffered from poor staging. Playwriting and directing are two separate tasks requiring different skills and experience, and each is best left to a specialist. By “insourcing” the direction of his play, the playwright is taking on a task that seems natural to him, but is actually inhibiting the ability of the play to realize its full artistic potential.
The lesson in this for artists is that it’s vital to find your niche. Figure out what it is that you do better or more imaginatively than anyone else, and focus on that with relentless passion, leaving the rest to other artists or to outside service providers. It’s a brutal enough business without the added complications of being a jack-of-all-trades.
When to Share: Opportunities and Pitfalls
What about cases that lie somewhere in between, where the activity in question seems central to what you’re trying to accomplish, but also requires skills that you don’t quite have? In the business world they call it a joint venture or a strategic partnership, but in the arts it’s known as collaboration.
Creative collaboration in the arts is appropriate whenever a work requires synchronized artistic input from more than one niche specialist in pursuit of a unified aesthetic vision. Some art forms (e.g. theatre, film) all but demand it, while others (e.g. sculpture) are more suited to solo practitioners. Regardless, collaboration is often the best way to expand one’s creative horizons without compromising one’s artistic integrity.
Collaboration is not without risks, though, so it’s important to heed a few caveats:
Chemistry is Key - Making art is an intensely personal activity. Make sure you’ve got great chemistry and good communication skills with your partner, otherwise passions will flare and sabotage the work.
Know Your Roles - Having clearly spelled out roles and responsibilities makes sure that everything gets done once and nothing gets done twice.
Put it in Writing - Contracts are cold and impersonal, but that’s the point. You don’t need a contract so that you can one day sue your collaborator. You need a contract so that it never gets to the point that you’d even consider suing your collaborator. A good contract anticipates every problem or dispute that may arise and solves it in advance. Once the project is underway, if there’s ever a question about how something should be handled, just consult the road map that you all agreed on up front.
Take Note of the Lighted Exit Signs - Despite everyone’s best intentions, not every collaboration works out. Make sure you’ve got an exit strategy in case things don’t turn out the way you expected.
