Part
of my task in my current consulting assignment is to develop the
client's strategy for the use of e-learning and other communication
tools. So I thought I'd update the decision tree I developed about
three years ago. The result is shown above, and reflects the decision
from the perspective of employees of larger organizations with a broad
range of communication technologies at their disposal (or, in some
cases, technologies that should
be at their disposal). This assumes the organization has sufficient
budget to invest in some commercial solutions, or to build their own.
Some interesting observations about all this:
- Despite
the enormous amounts many large organizations spend on communications
technologies, you can get just about all of these tools free or for
very little money. The cost soars only when you centralize and move infrastructure 'in'
from the Web to the internal organization. If you really have to do
that for security reasons, be aware that you're paying a massive price
for it. On the other hand, if you're doing it for 'control' reasons,
you're wasting your money. Just load all these free, web-based tools on
each employee's individual machine, and you've given them everything
they need to communicate and collaborate powerfully with people inside and outside the organization, for a song.
- The
largest component of cost for any of these technologies is training and
support. The typical large organization trains people exhaustively how
to use technology tools, and then runs help desks for all the people
who never took the training, or forgot it, or didn't understand it. But
if you give people the authority (and trust) to use communication technologies without centralized command and control, you should also give them the responsibility
to learn to use them effectively. That means erring on the side of
simple rather than powerful in the selection of tools, and expecting
employees to
- use the built in help that comes with most tools
- practice
using them until they become proficient (proficiency is a function of
practice, and the amount of practice is a function of the perceived
value of using the tool -- so if the tools you provide are good and
well-matched to employees' needs, they're going to be effectively used,
and if they aren't, no amount of training will make them otherwise),
and
- teach each other to use them more effectively (these are,
after all, communication tools, and users tend to talk about them when
they're using them, so the more they're used the more peer-to-peer
education will occur, and the less the need for centralized training).
With
a peer-to-peer, self-help, and self-management approach to use of
communication technologies, you should be able to slash how much you
spend on centralized training and support. Then you can get your
support people doing what front-line people can't -- fixing the stuff
that's broken.
What are the reasons we use faulty judgement, and use the wrong technology for communications?
- Habit:
We tend to use the tools we're most familiar, comfortable, and in the
habit of using, even when they're not optimal. It takes some practice
to train ourselves to think "what's the best medium to use for this?" before we start or respond to a communication.
- Personality:
Some people (e.g. those who are shy about face-to-face meetings) hide
behind e-mail even when it's not the right medium. Sometimes it's up to
use, the recipients, not to get drawn into time-wasting e-mail threads,
and walk down the hall or pick up the phone and talk it through in real
time.
- Physical layout:
Having people who need a lot of face-to-face contact in offices far
apart just to pay homage to the organization chart can obstruct the use
of optimal communication technologies.
- Ignorance:
If people don't know communication technologies are available, or if
they're hard to learn or remember how to use, or too complicated, they
won't be used.
- Unavailability:
Some organizations refuse to allow IM, blogs, wikis or free
collaboration tools or 'free' tools that need to be downloaded to each
PC, for security or centralized management reasons. Obviously, if the
tools aren't available, less appropriate tools have to be used.
I
won't get into the debate about which particular product is
best-of-breed for each type of technology tool -- this is a highly
personal matter, and probably depends on the organization, industry and
people. But what is clear is that these technologies are getting better
and cheaper at the same time, and there is a long-overdue trend to more
simplicity and intuitiveness in some new tools. Unfortunately, many
large organizations remain in the communication stone age, locked into
expensive, centrally managed, unfriendly, sub-optimal legacy
technologies. The change to decentralized, free, and open tools is just
too frightening for many heavily-invested organizations to contemplate. |
MADE IN CANADA
trust your
instincts 
