Have you ever met an advertising agency that doesn’t describe itself as “integrated?”  Not likely.  It’s actually one of those words – like quality and leadership – that has almost lost its meaning because it’s used so much.

That’s not to say integration isn’t important; it’s actually vital to the success of a professional firm like an agency.  But let’s define what we mean by integration.  Are we talking about an integrated idea, an integrated campaign, or an integrated agency?  These are all different questions.  The assumption is that integrated campaigns require an integrated agency, which isn’t necessary true.  Integrated campaigns can be the product of a variety of contributors, with either a “lead agency” or the client as the chief integrator.

But let’s assume that because most agencies are multi-disciplinary (instead of discipline specialists) that the first task is to achieve internal integration of agency functions.  In Ignition’s experience, only the very best firms have the processes, culture and compensation systems that allow for effective integration. 

Let’s start with processes

The agency development process is still largely sequential instead of adaptive. Phases of work move from one “department” to the next as though we’re assembling a car rather than crafting a solution to a business problem.

At the epicenter of this traditional approach is the “Scope of Work,” a pre-determined list of “deliverable” often developed by clients themselves.  But the first more important question is “What is the Scope of Value”?  What is this SOW intended to achieve?  What are the expected outcomes or results of the work?

After all, unless you clearly define the Scope of Value, the Scope of Work might be wrong (and often is).  Working against a conventional Scope of Work points agencies toward a conventional work process.  But working against a Scope of Value can produce a much more fluid internal development process, because the team adopts much more of a “test and learn” approach, tapping into the brainpower of whatever agency function or discipline they believe can help improve the effectiveness of the solution they’re developing.

Our friends at Toronto-based Teehan+Lax illustrate the difference between traditional marketing and adaptive marketing this way:

Traditional Marketing Approach

Adaptive Marketing Approach

In place of SOV (Scope of Value) appears KPIs (Key Performance Indicators), which is similar way of saying the same thing. 

Where integration counts the most

Here’s another useful way of looking at the role of internal collaboration and the points in time that integration is most important:

Integration is dependent on the right incentives

Underneath all of these process issues lurks an even more fundamental problem: from a compensation perspective, agencies actually have a disincentive to collaborate.

The hourly rate model puts pressure on agency client service executives to involve as few people as possible on an assignment in order to avoid going “over estimate.”  Agency owners can’t on the one hand preach “more collaboration” and on the other hand hold the team’s feet to the fire on “unbillable time.” 

You can’t have it both ways; either you believe you’re in the business of creating powerful multidisciplinary ideas or you believe you’re in the business of selling time.  Associates who are on the front lines of the agency are acutely aware of the incompatibility of these two different paradigms.

The impact of culture

And finally the element of culture. Some agencies have an open, risk-tolerant culture that not only allows but actually encourages multiple sources of input on a project.

Other agencies have a low-key, nose-to-the-grindstone culture that emphasizes efficiency and “getting the work done.”  Cultures like this put a real damper on effective ideation; they feel more like law or accounting firms than advertising agencies.

In the end, the degree to which your firm integrates is dependent on your internal definition of success.

If success is defined as an effective solution to a business problem – a successful marketplace outcome – then chances are the people on your internal teams will be highly proactive collaborators.

If on the other hand success is defined mostly in financial terms – jobs completed “under estimate” – you’ll get people are mostly worried about being called on the carpet for exceeding their “allotted hours.”

Measure what matters

“You are what you measure,” observes Duke University’s Dan Ariely, professor of behavioral economics.  If what you measure is “billability,” what you’ll get is compliance to that standard.  If what you measure is marketplace success, you’ll get the internal integration and collaboration you promise to your clients.

Related content:

• 12 ways to capture more value in 2010 »
• A new definition of creativity for ad agencies »
• A report on industry megatrends: but which industry? »
• A Visionary View of the Future Role of Agencies »
• Agencies and the Art of the Possible »