Communication networks are spreading everywhere. The new trend is to include blogs and Wikis in these networks. The goal is to manage, archive and search conversations that two people or a group of peoples are exchanging.
However, the question is: will these communication networks, mainly supported by Internet technologies, eventually replace the social (see face-to-face) ones when will come the time to gather informal pieces of knowledge?
We will get the perspective of a project manager to see if it could. First of all, you need to have in mind that replacing it or not, these new communications networks emerging from everywhere help us archiving things that were not thinkable decades ago.
As a project manager, you will have to deal with working teams, clients, suppliers, etc. You will have an overview of the project to develop. You will be helped in your task by many sources of knowledge like, marketing requirements documents, vision/scope documents, specifications documents, or the knowledge that came from expert consultants, your workers, or anything else present in your working environment. Communication and social networks are just two other sources of knowledge in that environment.
The power of a project manager is that he is able to talk to every body that works on a project. He can talk with them about the things they are currently working on, or about more personal problems that will force them to go out of the city for a week. One of the non written tasks of this manager is to take into account all these parcels of knowledge that could help him managing his project. This sort of knowledge is gathered via informal discussions with people. With that knowledge, he will be able to re-plan his schedule to take into account that one of his employee is in trouble and that he will probably need take a week off. Without these informal discussions, it would be much harder to plan all these little irritants that could and will afflict the project.
What if these managers stops to walk around between the working teams members and only communicated with them via the latest communication tool that help him to have all the information he wants at the finger tip? Will this system will be able to give him that sort of informal pieces of knowledge essential for the good execution of the project? This is the question.
Personally I think that it could be done technically, but not practically. The problem would be that every employee would need to take time, many times, to write everything that happens in his job and in his personal live. It is impossible to archive. The employee will only talk about these essential informal pieces of knowledge if he entrust the person he is talking to, in our case, the project manager.
Have you another vision of the problem that could eventually appear? I mean, many companies develop such systems. If they develop them, they will also sell them. If they sell them, it is sure that someone will buy them (considering that some sellers are able to sell fridges to Eskimos). Do you think that these companies could expect some problems if they rely too heavily on these systems instead of the more conventional human relations?
Technorati: Communication | network | management | manager | project | social | relationship |
tom sherman
July 16, 2005 — 8:47 pm
This is an interesting question, one that I think about often and which arises in a roundabout fashion whenever a new and exciting technology is introduced. I think it’s been done whenever wikis, blogs, RSS, email, etc. has become popular.
Since I have a background in anthropology but work in technology, the answer for me often boils down to how people, specifically people enmeshed in culture, think about technology. You can train people to use technology, and the technology (in the abstract) can be skeleton key, but you need cultural buy-in for true efficiency. This is where I believe many organizations fall short.
Fred
July 17, 2005 — 1:25 pm
Hello Mr. Sherman,
Nice to have an anthropology point of view. I agree with that.
I remember that 10 years ago, people feared that the Internet would make asocial people who would only live in their home and cyber-world. However it turns out that people increased their social interaction with people, and that those people would eventually organize live meetings with their internet group of friends/contacts etc. So, I think that I only re-raised the question but the result will be the same as it is since centuries: human interactions will prevail.
Salutations,
Fred
tom sherman
July 17, 2005 — 9:43 pm
Fred,
You make an interesting point. Although the original purpose of the Internet was to facilitate academic- and military-type communication, where it has really grown is in the area of communication between individuals. (Well, after porn, that is.) Chat, instant messaging, personal email, and personal blogs account for a large percentage of the information flowing back and forth.
Still, I’m not convinced that quantity = quality. I don’t believe that our society has yet come to grips with the effect of this pervasive “onlineness” on the human psyche and happiness in general. There are people who live to play Everquest and spend 15 hours a day doing it. Technology here has “succeeded” but I think it’s a failure of humans to use it healthily and in moderation.
Fred
July 18, 2005 — 12:09 pm
Hello Mr. Sherman,
quantity = quality: definitely not. But the question is: is the quality only emerging from quantity? In that case, quantity could be seen as an iteration process to upgrade things (ideas, concepts, etc) to finally get something of quality.
I think that the problem you are pointing out is a mental problem only applicable to individuals. I mean, studies tend to show that addiction (games, alcohol, etc) could be biological. Then this addiction to cyber-world is simply one of mental illness precipitated by these innovations and their uses.
Thank for this good discussion,
Salutations,
Fred
tom sherman
July 18, 2005 — 1:41 pm
Although it’s an interesting concept to think of culling quality from quantity–sort of like panning for gold–I don’t think I agree here. I think it’s vital for the communication system to be designed such that filtering for quality is built-in. Information overload is the bane of so many systems (and our world overall), isn’t it?
What makes search so useful is that it filters the useful, quality info from the huge quantity of information. But Google wouldn’t be a multibillion dollar company if the Web were organized from the ground up and werent full of noise. This is the same reason why people talk about RSS being more useful as a means of distributing information than email. So, to address your initial addression, I think that it’s vital for a communication system to be designed for quality, not just quality, if it’s to replace the social networks.
tom sherman
July 18, 2005 — 1:43 pm
“designed for quality, not just quantity” I mean
Fred
July 18, 2005 — 5:17 pm
Hello Mr. Sherman,
I agree that information overload is sometimes worse than no information at all. It is sure that if a communication system is able to filter the knowledge to only show the good one, it would be fantastic. However, for now, I think it is somewhat rudimentary (Google is fantastic, but it is nothing compared to what they could and probably would develop in next decades).
So I also agree that the communication systems will need that feature if they want to try to replace social networks (see face-to-face). However, as good as the system is to filter the knowledge, he will need to posses that knowledge. The problem I see is that the system will not have access to that informal knowledge. So, if he does not possess the knowledge, he will not be able to process/filter it. There is my point of view about the question ๐
How these communication systems could gather this type of informal knowledge that informal communication between two people gives? Answering to that question could lead to something really interesting I the domain of communication systems ๐
Salutations,
Fred
tom sherman
July 20, 2005 — 9:21 am
You are correct; the domain of “informal knowledge” includes things we often overlook, such as body language. This is very useful for gauging a person’s attitude when you are face-to-face, but online, we have only the crude approximation of emoticons.
Fred
July 21, 2005 — 1:24 pm
Hello Mr. Sherman,
Effectively, eventually we will have access to something more than emoticons ๐
However, this is also a problem of timing. I mean: being at the right place, at the good moment.
Saluations,
Fred