How to Measure the Success of a Collaboration

Successful collaboration drives all successful projects. It’s essential for our business. But how do we know if a collaboration is a success? “I just know,” you might say. Or you might point to the fact that you came in on schedule and budget — or to repeat clients and partners. While those are certainly signifiers of success, they’re vague. When it comes to something as important as your business, knowing numbers is essential. 

I know that some of us in building fields—creatives especially—are averse to looking at the numbers, choosing instead to feel our way through business or trust that things are working. But that’s not enough. You can’t grow what you can’t measure. 

Measuring collaboration can be especially challenging, but without clear metrics, teams may struggle to assess whether a partnership is truly working or, if not,  how to improve it. What are the weak points? What should we do less of? What should we do more of? Where can we invest the least effort or resources to get the greatest gain?

While no single measurement system fits every team, there are proven, structured evaluation methods that can help professionals refine our processes. Below, we explore three potential tools—EOS, OKRs, and NPS—not as definitive solutions but as adaptable frameworks that might inspire teams to rethink how they measure success.

Entrepreneurial Operating System (EOS)

First introduced in the book Traction by Gino Wickman, EOS is a highly structured approach to running a business that helps define a clear vision and foster accountability. It provides a systematic way to align teams around shared goals by defining clear roles, establishing expectations, and implementing regular check-ins. 

For collaborators, EOS offers a process for decision-making and conflict resolution before issues escalate. This is a great way to make conflict productive, as we’ve previously discussed. However, while this approach might benefit more structured firms, it may feel too rigid for teams that thrive in flexible or creative environments. Finding that balance is essential.

Pros:

• Creates accountability by defining clear roles and responsibilities
• Encourages structured communication to maintain alignment and resolve conflicts proactively
• Helps teams focus on priorities and reduce distractions

Cons:

• May be too slow and rigid for highly creative teams
• Requires strong leadership and full commitment from all team members

Objectives and Key Results (OKRs)

OKRs were introduced at Intel in the 1970s and popularized at Google in the ’90s. This goal-setting framework is designed to track progress toward well-defined and time-bound objectives by linking them to specific, measurable key results. Basically, you set a few meaningful goals and define, step-by-meassurable-step, how to get there. 

Teams might set OKRs related to project timelines, stakeholder engagement, or even communication efficiency. The challenge with OKRs lies in defining key results that are both meaningful and quantifiable. Poorly chosen metrics won’t help your teams improve. In fact, they might be a waste of time (and resources). To maximize impact, teams should ensure their OKRs are specific, measurable, and directly linked to improved collaboration outcomes.

Pros:

• Very team-focused. Provides clear, often ambitious collaboration goals
• Aligns and focuses team efforts on objective, quantitative results
• Flexible enough to support different collaboration structures

Cons:

• OKRs aren’t always obvious. Risk of setting arbitrary or irrelevant key results that don’t make an impact
• Requires consistent tracking and adjustment

Net Promoter Score (NPS) for Collaboration

NPS was originally developed by Fred Reichheld at Bain & Company to measure customer loyalty. Reicheld called it “the one number you need to know.” The framework is based on one simple question: On a scale of 0 to 10, how likely are you to recommend [insert subject here]? Respondents are categorized into three groups:

Promoters (9-10): Highly satisfied respondents who would recommend or engage again.

Passives (7-8): Neutral respondents who had a decent experience but weren’t enthusiastic.

Detractors (0-6): Unhappy respondents who had a negative experience.

For example, you might ask, “how likely are you to recommend working with this team again.” Although NPS was developed to measure customer loyalty, it can also serve as a tool for evaluating team sentiment and collaboration dynamics. A high score suggests strong, trusted collaboration, while a low score signals underlying challenges. This is important information, but the raw NPS score is more of a “pulse” check. Low scores should be supplemented with additional questions to identify recurring issues and understand the problems. 

Pros:

• Simple and quick to implement
• Provides insight into team sentiment and working relationships
• Helps identify areas for improvement in collaboration

Cons:

• Highly subjective. Reflects a single moment in time and may require additional data 
• Does not provide direct solutions

Don’t Just Measure — Act.

Whatever system you employ, whether it’s one of these or something you develop yourself, it’s not enough to simply track the numbers. Growth only comes if you act on the insight those numbers reveal. If EOS identifies a gap in your workflow, fill it. If an NPS survey reveals your team is unhappy with communication, adjust your meeting cadence or check-ins. If OKRs indicate unmet goals, consider reassessing your workflow strategies. The value of measurement is directly proportional to your willingness to respond. It can be uncomfortable to confront tough insights. It requires strong leaders and open-minded teams. But that’s how we create opportunity. That’s how we grow — with intention and integrity.