Coordination is focusing on activity and process, while integration is refocusing on outcome and results, rather than activity and process.

Coordination is focusing on activity and process, while integration is refocusing on outcome and results, rather than activity and process.

Dear Lars, 

in my opinion we need these two concepts, because they simply mean different things. When we coordinate sth, we want different elements, subsystems work more effitintly, smoothly etc. When we integrate sth we aim at building links, relations in order to make different elements work closer with each other, in more different areas etc. 

We can coordinate sth without any intention of making these elements be more integrated, or aim at integration of sth - as the first step, and then coordinate this already integrated system. 

BUT THE managerial MECHANISMS can be the same; you can use the hammer for building the house or as a weapon; but it' still the same hammer :)

what do you think?

best regards, Beata

Let us look at it from Synergy point of view. Several departments in an organization may coordinate their internal teams' work and outcomes (operational objectives), however, there is a need to integrate all outcomes to achieve a higher organization objective which capitalizes on the coordinated outcomes, therefore, necessitating cross-functional integration of outcomes to achieve the organizational synergy which is strategic in nature.

Coordination is synchronization of the activities of different people in organization so that there are least frictions and maximum possible efficiency. It may be intra-teams or inter-teams. Integration is coordination plus. It seeks to juxtapose all organization's activities,  teams, and divisions;  and connect/synchronizes them with the vision/goals of the organization. The latter facilitates filling the gaps between the existing working and the desired working at a more holistic level.

coordination is a local, managerial tool. On the other hand integration is a conceptual enlargement of domains. Call it global for simplification (vis-a-vis local).This connect will serve to conceptually redefine the 'Integration'

Dear Lars,

Thank you for pointing to an interesting issue in coordination research. In my view reardless of the level of analysis in which coordination is being studied, integration and coordination cannot be used iterchangeably, they are fundamentally different concepts. However, when we invoque coordination, we have three assumption about work in mind:

(1) Some piece of work is to be achieved

(2) such Work is distributed

(3) Work is interdependent

Once the diffeent pieces of work have ben achievd, they are then integrated. Threfore, I am inclined to say that coordination is an antecedent to integration rather than integration and coordination being synonymous.

I am actually finding this as a challenge, in the same that when you look at it in the perspective of procurement process management, in which case the process requires an integrated approach to achieve the desired outcome, then could this be the same as the process phases being well coordinated (which is emphasised by Activity domain theory) rather than using integrated ?...How can i use activity domain theory to bring out the functional nature of the procurement function in organisations with all the phases of the procurement process being integrated with one another to achieve desired outcome?

After thinking about coordination versus integration for another two years, I still find it puzzling. Also, the comments given so far do not seem to converge. Since I’m interested in the link between our biological capacities for coordination and social coordination of joint activities, I have come up with the following prototypical conceptualization:

Autonomous action (i.e. acting alone) requires the integration of a number of neurobiological functions before an individual can act. Some requisite functions are: focusing on a target (the object of actions); contextualizing the situation (what is relevant or what is not relevant); spatial orientation; conceiving actions towards the target. Not before these functions are integrated into a coherent whole, can the individual act in a coordinated way.

Joint action (when several individual join together to achieve some common good) is achieved by fitting together individual lines of action, i.e. coordinating individual actions. This means that whatever capacities an individual has for coordinating her actions, these are inevitably at play also in joint actions. Thus, a key research question is to unravel our evolutionary required, requisite neurobiological functions for coordinating actions – what I have tried to conceptualize as the activity modalities. Just my thoughts… I welcome any comments on this!

Charles, I send you a separate message concerning your specific question.

I have now, I believe, come a bit closer to understand the essence of coordination versus integration. From the model proposed by the Russian biologist and physiologist Pyotr Anokhin (see e.g. Toomela, A. (2010). Biological Roots of Foresight and Mental Time Travel. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science, 44, 97-125.), it is clear that integration can be associated with ‘afferent synthesis’ by which external sensations can be integrated into a Gestalt by which decisions of how to act is taken. Coordination is associated with what Anokhin calls ‘efferent execution’, i.e. carrying out action.

Glad for any comments!

See also: Red’ko, V.G., Prokhorov, D.V., and Burtsev, M.B. (2004). Theory of Functional Systems, Adaptive Critics and Neural Networks. In Proceedings of International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, Budapest, 2004, 1787-1792

I believe all the different applications mentioned by our colleagues lead to your conclusions as well as to confirm the Russian work. Take analysis and synthesis (partitioning and then put together needs coordination and the outcome of synthesis lead to integration). Or coordinating the synthesis process in such a way to reach to the outcome of photosynthesis for example is integration.

What is the difference between coordination and integration?

Think "Integration" carries the meaning of verticalism i.e. combining multiple parts to form a bigger whole whereas "coordinate" refers to "horizontalism" i.e. adjust something between or among multiple parts. E.g. the solution architect integrates all the point solutions into a larger coherent solution whereas the procurement officer coordinates between the external vendors & the internal solution team to get the best pricing for certain products.