Archive for October, 2009

The subject of my (newly) teenaged son’s homework came up the other day, a familiar if delicate subject for any parent. Is he getting enough? Is he doing enough? And what are his marks like? Partly in an attempt to move on (is October of Year 8 really the right time?), I suggested ‘worrying about outputs not inputs’ by which I think I meant ‘exam results’. It’s not the first time I’ve used those words, as anyone with whom I’ve ever done a comms survey will testify. But with a number of communication and engagement surveys currently on the go, it seems a good time to revisit the argument.

First, let me clarify my meaning. By outputs, I mean the wider organisational outcomes we are seeking to bring about which in the case of an internal communication function might include building staff engagement with strategy or boosting trust in leadership. By inputs, I mean the activities we undertake to make this happen which might include updating the Intranet or running CEO roadshows.  In other words, one is an end in itself and the other a means to an end.

But what if our outputs are not properly defined? What if our very best efforts to clarify the role of the function still mean multiple interpretations of our purpose? And what if we ‘own’ only part of the outcome (there’s only so much influence we can have over staff engagement with strategy or perception of leadership)? Under these circumstances, measuring output becomes difficult and focusing on inputs suddenly appears more attractive. After all, no one’s going to get fired for measuring hits on a website or reaction to the CEO roadshow, sharing the results (always important) and learning from the feedback.  

My big concern and the basis of my argument is that by focusing on the inputs, we overlook the organisational outcomes the IC function is really trying to bring about and then double the crime by failing to use the opportunity presented by a measurement exercise to define it. That said, this can be a long and tiring process and deflect from the primary function of any good IC function which is to facilitate better internal communication. 

I make no apology for beating the ‘outputs’ drum as I believe every IC function should be clear about the wider outcomes it is seeking to influence. But to not measure all those tangibles that the function is best known for is equally negligent. So a small but important revision to my favourite expression; internal comms measurement is about outputs and inputs. Better go and check on that homework then.

For many knowledge workers a popular unit of exchange when collaborating is an MS Word document, with discussion occurring via tracked edits and comments.

As an approach to collaboration this has drawbacks: even if people use the reviewing features properly it scales poorly. Discussions bleed into emails (which not everyone is copied on), versions fall out of sync, and often someone has to resolve it all manually. Document management helps, but the collaborative aspects remain clunky because the conversation is still tacked on like a collection of Post-It Notes.

However, as an approach to creating an information product it’s great. One might lose version and discussion data, but a standalone information container remains, often in a form that’s easy for newcomers to consume.

So as a unit of information exchange the document is king; but that may be changing.

If you’ve been following the development of applications like Google Wave then you may have noticed the document-centric paradigm being eroded. Words, images and video are all just information assets which pepper the new unit of exchange: the conversation; and I mean conversation not as an abstract concept, but as a thing that can be accessed and manipulated by people and software.

Google Wave makes this shift obvious, but for heavy users of tools like Skype IM and forums this is a change that’s been happening quietly for some time.

Last week, after a long discussion with friends via Skype IM, we realised that since our conversation had not been centred on a document we had two choices for capturing our outcomes: author a memo, or paste the whole chat log into a forum thread. We chose the latter, and I doubt we’re unique – but are we short-sighted or efficient?

A key feature of Google Wave is ‘Playback’, which allows you to re-run an entire conversation (potentially even if you weren’t an original participant). As an approach to collaboration this is superb.

So is the conversation the future king?

Possibly; but if so then it raises questions about how we communicate beyond the original participants in any discussion. Reading the so-called ’scroll-back’ from a conversation may offer rich content, but as an information product it’s vulnerable to bloat, and in the broader context it may scale poorly.

To use a practical example, recall any first day you’ve had in a new job. In the near future will it be a case of reading through a collection of key documents, or scanning an equivalent collection of digital transcripts; and which would you and your colleagues prefer?