Exploring The Workplace Communication Ecology
CHI 2010: User Characteristics and Large-Scale TrackingApril 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, GA, USAExploring the Workplace Communication EcologyThea Turner, Pernilla Qvarfordt, Jacob T. Biehl, Gene Golovchinsky, Maribeth BackFX Palo Alto Laboratory, Inc.3400 Hillview Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94304{turner, pernilla, biehl, gene, back}@fxpal.comABSTRACTDifferent tools support different levels of information,expressiveness and context. They provide communicatingparties with varying levels of awareness and leave behinddiffering records of communication acts. Each tool has itsown strengths and weaknesses. For instance, email providesa persistent record of its messages, but does not conveynon-verbal signals. Face-to-face communication, on theother hand, provides a wealth of information about thecommunicating parties, gleaned from facial expressions,body language, verbal pauses, and other sources, butgenerally leaves only an imperfect trace (in participants’memories) of exactly what was said.The modern workplace is inherently collaborative, and thiscollaboration relies on effective communication amongcoworkers. Many communication tools – email, blogs,wikis, Twitter, etc. – have become increasingly availableand accepted in workplace communications. In this paper,we report on a study of communications technologies usedover a one-year period in a small US corporation. We foundthat participants used a large number of communicationtools for different purposes, and that the introduction ofnew tools did not impact significantly the use of previouslyadopted technologies. Further, we identified distinct classesof users based on patterns of tool use. This work hasimplications for the design of technology in the evolvingecology of communication tools.In this paper, we seek to characterize the currentcommunication ecologies that workers assemble. Weinvestigate communication practices over a period of a littlemore than a year, identifying what communicationtechnologies are adopted and how adoption differs fordifferent groups of people. We then build an understandingof why particular tools in a user’s ecology are selected andhow the tools are used in combination.Author KeywordsCommunication, Collaboration, Computer MediatedCommunication, Phone, Email, Instant Messaging, Blogs,Wikis, Face-to-face, EvaluationACM Classification KeywordsH.5.3 Group and Organization Interfaces.Our analysis profiles communication practices at a smallcompany located on the West Coast of the United States.Small companies with fewer than 100 employees make upover 85% of all US companies [31]. We believe thatstudying and designing communication technologies forsmall companies poses different challenges than for largecompanies or universities. Furthermore this demographic isunder-represented in HCI research. Unlike studies of largeorganizations, in a small company a significant portion ofthe organization can participate in the study, providing aclearer picture of its overall communication pattern. As wediscuss later, this allowed us to articulate different classesof users and how each class impacts the company’scommunication practices.General TermsHuman Factors.INTRODUCTIONEffective communication is a critical component ofsuccessful collaboration. It enables collaborators to fosterideas, to build common ground, and to develop complexinterpersonalrelationships[5, 12, 30].Asnewcommunication technologies emerge, their use is becomingincreasingly common in the workplace. The office is nolonger just telephone, email and FAX. CSCW researchershave studied successful use and adoption of instantmessaging/chat [13, 16, 19], virtual worlds [1], socialnetworking sites [2, 28, 10], Twitter [32], wikis [8, 20, 21]and blogs [11, 15] in the workplace, and have found themto be beneficial.While there have been many studies of a single specificcommunication tools in the workplace, we believe that weare one of the first to take a broad view of thecommunication landscape since the introduction of newcommunication technologies (e.g. social networking sites,blogs, wikis and virtual worlds). The contribution of thiswork centers on three main themes: trends incommunication practices in the workplace, how differentgroups of people adopt new technology, and the strengthsand weaknesses of technologies in use.With the wide variety of technologies in use, workers arebuilding their own ecologies of communicationtechnologies, with each technology fulfilling a specific role,allowing different expression or providing a critical service.Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work forpersonal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies arenot made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copiesbear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, orrepublish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specificpermission and/or a fee.CHI 2010, April 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, Georgia, USA.Copyright 2010 ACM 978-1-60558-929-9/10/04. 10.00.RELATED WORKThe CSCW research community has a rich tradition ofinvestigating collaborative practices of organizations andtheir members. In this section, we discuss prior work that is841
CHI 2010: User Characteristics and Large-Scale Trackingmost related to ours, and describe how our research buildsfrom, extends, or differs from past work.April 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, GA, USAOne problem with media selection theories is that mediaselection is viewed out of the context of larger ongoingcommunication in the workplace [29]. One communicationact, such as an email or a phone call, is often part of a largercommunication context. This context may affect theselection of particular communication media. Neither do theexisting media selection theories explain how people takeup new communication media.Theoretical frameworks for selecting communicationmediaOne proposed basis for selecting communication media isthe richness of the communication channel [7]. Face-to-faceis the richest medium since it provides rich feedback,multiple cues such as intonation, body language, languagevariety, and a personal focus. The media richness theorypredicts that communication will be more effective face-toface than through other media.Interpersonal ConnectionsAlthough communication involves multiple people, the roleof interpersonal relationships is not well explained in mediaselection theories. However, several studies haveinvestigated how communication technologies impactinterpersonal relationships. Nardi [22] explains thatsuccessful interpersonal communication depends on aperson’s communicative readiness. Many communicationtechnologies, Nardi argues, are not by themselves sufficientfor providing this readiness. Thus, combinations ofcommunication media are needed to build the appropriatesocial bonds, commitments, and attention awareness.Likewise, Olson and Olson [24] found that even ibilities, distance collaboration suffered whenparticipants were not able to build interpersonalconnections.However, competing theories point out severalshortcomings of the Media Richness Theory. One of them isthat people seem to adapt to the communication media [9]and compensate for signals that a channel cannot carry. As aresult, it has been hard to prove that seeing a person’s facemakes a difference in task performance [e.g. 23, 27].Channel Expansion Theory [3] explains how less rich mediacan be experienced as richer than predicted by MediaRichness Theory. According to this theory, the richness ofcommunication media is not explained as staticcharacteristics of the media, but as an effect of individualknowledge-building experience with the media. Theperception of a medium is built on a person’s knowledgeabout the medium and about communication partners, morethan on the number of times a person used the medium. Theorganizational context can also influence the choice ofmedia. For instance, Hinds and Kiesler [14] found that userspreferred synchronous communication tools wheninteracting outside their immediate workgroup and withtheir superiors, while asynchronous tools were preferred forwithin-workgroup communication.More specifically, Connell et al. [6] studied variouscommunication tools and asked users to rate how well thetools supported interpersonal connections. Not surprisingly,results showed that the choice of communication technologyaffected interpersonal qualities, such as a collaborator“acting like [one] self” or “behaving as intended.”In our research, we seek to further understand therelationships among modern communication tools and theirrole in supporting interpersonal connections. Building onpast work, we seek to articulate the perceived tradeoffs ofusing computer-mediated communication technologies inthe workplace and how they support interpersonalconnections.A third theory, proposed by Robert and Dennis [26], is builton cognitive models of communication rather than onindividuals’ subjective experience. This theory adds thedimensions of motivation and ability to process informationto the Media Richness Theory. These two dimensions makeit possible to explain why email sometimes is preferred overface-to-face, since it allows the person to processinformation more deeply than if the same information weregiven face-to-face. This theory can explain the finding byKim et al. [19] that technical workers favor email forcommunicating highly technical content.Studies of Communication Tools in the WorkplaceAs new technologies have been introduced, the researchcommunity has been quick to study their impact in theworkplace. Several studies [13, 16, 19] of instant messaging(IM) and chat have shown wide adoption and value of theiruse in the workplace. Handel and Herbsleb [13] show IM tobe a useful tool for facilitating exchange of technical contentas well as a tool for facilitating coordination and buildingawareness. In a similar study, Isaacs et al. [16] emphasizedthat while IM is predominantly used for casual socialinteraction at home, such use does not dominate workplaceIM use.There are some similarities between the concept of commonground and the Media Richness Theory. Common ground isimportant for successful communication [5]. Differentcommunication media support establishing commongrounds in different ways. Clark and Brennan [4] proposeeight different constraints that a medium imposes otemporality, simultaneity, sequentiality, reviewability andrevisability. Face-to-face supports the first five, while emailsupports the last two [24]. This theory also can explain whytechnical workers favored email for technical content. Emailwould allow them to review and revise the content when itwas important for their work.Studies of wikis [8, 20, 21], blogs [11, 15], and socialnetworking sites (SNS) [2, 10, 28] have also shown the valueof these technologies in the workplace. For instance, Danisand Singer [8] found that an enterprise wiki was a usefulclearing ground for shared information. This, in turn,provided greater transparency of organizational content toall stakeholders. Similarly, as described by Efimova and842
CHI 2010: User Characteristics and Large-Scale TrackingApril 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, GA, USAadministrative employees. Thirty percent of the participantswere female.Grudin [11] and Huh et al. [15], blogs have proven to be auseful tool for cross-organizational communication andcollaboration within large corporations. Skeels and Grudin’s[28] research also showed high use and value of SNS in theenterprise. Workers reported that SNSs were useful formaintaining external professional networks and for creatingand strengthening ties with peers. Virtual worlds (VW) havebeen tried in distributed teams of large organizations. Intheir work, Bessière et al. [1] found that the technologicaland collaborative readiness was insufficient for wideadoption of virtual worlds.2009 SurveyMuch of the second survey was a repeat of the first one,with some changes and additions. In addition to theinformation included in the first survey, we asked how oftenrespondents: Read information on a project wiki, Used canned or customized status messages in IM (boththeir own and others),While these studies provide insight into the value of specificcommunication tools, none has specifically sought tounderstand their strengths and weaknesses when used incombination with other communication tools. Our workseeks to identify relationships among everyday tools, and tocharacterize how they fit into the socio-technical ecology ofthe workplace in a small organization. Read blogs and microblogs (e.g., Twitter), and Posted an entry on a work or personal blog, a microblog,or a status on a social networking site.We updated the clients and features for IM, and applicationsin virtual worlds to reflect observed frequencies and newoptions. We also included the category Hourly for frequencyjudgments.STUDYTo obtain a better understanding of the mix ofcommunication tools people use as well as the tools’strengths and weaknesses, we conducted two surveys a yearapart, in May 2008 and 2009. A few months after the secondsurvey, we conducted detailed interviews with a subset ofthe participants in the 2009 survey. The interviews probedtheir communication use and history.Further, we made two major additions to the survey.Participants judged whether their use of each feature, client,or communication method decreased, increased or did notchange during the past year. In addition, they were asked toprovide a few words or phrases that described the strengthsand weaknesses of each communication method.The survey was administered in a two-week period. A totalof 32 people completed the survey, of which 27 hadparticipated in the first survey. Participants included 21researchers, 4 programmers, 4 managers, and 3administrative employees. Twenty-eight percent of theparticipants were female.The research was conducted in a small US corporation withapproximately 50 employees and contractors. All employeesof the company are co-located on one floor. The educationlevel of participants ranged from Bachelor’s degree toPh.D.; their age ranged from the late twenties to the latefifties. Participants were all knowledge workers whofrequently used computers. They generally worked in teamson several projects at a time, where the project teammembers varied by project. Some teams includedindividuals from other organizations, often located inanother country.InterviewsWe conducted 23 interviews several months after the secondsurvey. Sixteen of the interviewees were male; 18 had takenboth surveys. The interviews covered communicationbehaviors of the participants, and lasted approximately onehour.2008 SurveyRESULTSThe first survey solicited information about the use ofvarious means of communication: face-to-face, telephone,email, physical notes, instant messaging (IM), SNSs, blogs,wikis and virtual worlds. We asked whether each methodwas used for private life, work, or both, with the exceptionof wikis, where we asked only about wiki use related towork.The results of our surveys and interviews are divided intothree parts: an analysis of usage trends in communicationbehavior, an analysis of patterns of behavior across users,and an exploration of the strengths and weaknessesattributed to the tools and how that impacts their use. In ourexamination of the communication trends, we restricted theanalysis to the 27 people who completed both surveys.We asked how frequently the methods were used, whereresponses included Never, Not in the last year, Less thanonce a month, Monthly, Weekly, or Daily. For somemethods, such as instant messaging and social networkingsites, we also asked how often they used particular clients.For IM, respondents were asked how frequently they usedvarious features, including text chat, voice chat, video chat,and file sharing. People also had the opportunity tocomment on their use of the methods.Use and Trends in Communication BehaviorThe availability of new communication methods does notguarantee that people will use them. To determine adoptionof new options and their impact on the more traditionalcommunication methods, we examined the first and secondsurvey to identify usage trends.We did not expect a significant reduction in the use oftraditional communications channels, such as face-to-face,telephone, physical notes, and email. As expected, nodifferences were observed for these methods over the year(see Figure 1). Use of phone, email and face-to-faceThe survey was administered in a two-week period. A totalof 40 people completed the survey. Participants included 23researchers, 7 programmers, 3 managers, 2 interns, and 5843
CHI 2010: User Characteristics and Large-Scale TrackingApril 10–15, 2010, Atlanta, GA, USAFigure 1. Percentage of respondents reporting the use of each method for personal and work use in 2008 and 2009. All respondentsused email for work and personal use, so it has been excluded from the graph.communication for both personal and work purposes wasnearly universal, although phones were used more forpersonal than for work communication (F(1, 26) 8.08,p 0.01). Physical notes were used for communication byabout to 78% of respondents, with no difference betweenthe surveys or the aspect of life in which they were used.MethodFace to FacePhonePhysical NoteWiki ContributionAny IM ClientIM F: Text ChatIM F: File SharingIM F: Voice ChatIM F: Video ChatSNSTwitterBlogSecond LifeWith regard to newer communication technologies, morepeople reported that they used IM (F(1, 26) 14.81,p 0.001), SNS (F(1, 26) 19.50, p 0.001), blogging(F(1, 26) 33.12, p 0.001), and VW (F(1, 26) 5.20,p 0.05) in 2009 than had in 2008 (Figure 1). In addition,more people used IM (F(1, 26) 7.83, p 0.01) and VWapplications (F(1, 26) 11.61, p 0.01) at work than in theirpersonal life. The use of wikis did not change over thecourse of the year.Respondents indicated how frequently they used eachmethod, ranging from Never to Daily (see Table 1 forfrequency of methods). Somewhat surprisingly, peoplereported more frequent face-to-face communications in2009 than in 2008. The reported frequency of othertraditional communication methods did not increase overthis period. Use of IM clients, especially the text chatfunction, increased dramatically over the year from amedian of less than once a month to weekly use. Voice chatand video chat increased as well, but less so, from a medianof Never to Less than once a month.Mean (Median) Mean (Median)20082009F-ratio4.5 (Daily)4.4 (Daily)2.5 (Monthly)1.6 ( Monthly)2.6 ( Monthly)1.9 ( Monthly)0.9 (Never)1.1 (Never)1.0 (Never)2.0 ( Monthly)0.9 (Never)0.9 (Never)0.3 (Never)8.68 ***3.11 nsns13.0 ***17.9 ***3.21 6.24 *4.64 *21.7 ***15.1 ***24.3 ***ns5.0 (Daily)4.7 (Daily)2.9 (Weekly)1.2 ( Monthly)3.6 (Weekly)3.6 (Weekly)1.3 ( Yearly)1.8 ( Monthly)1.6 ( Monthly)3.7 (Weekly)3.0 (Weekly)3.0 (Weekly)0.6 (Never)Table 1. Comparison of Frequency of Use of SelectedCommunication Methods and Clients for 2009 and 2009. Emailis excluded, since its frequency was 5 (Daily) for all cases.IM F:IM Feature. indicates p-values 0.1, * p 0.05, ** p 0.01, *** p 0.001.The survey responses highlighted the trend of keeping upwith colleagues, friends and family on social network sitesand microblogs. Use of SNS applications rose from less thanonce a month to weekly over the year. Microblogs, likeTwitter, also showed a dramatic increase from a medianfrequency of Never in 2008 to Weekly in 2009.The 2009 survey added questions about IM. Three-fourths ofrespondents had used IM on their internal IM server with amedian frequency of Weekly, but only 15% used it on adaily basis. Eighty percent used IM status for people on theirbuddy list to be aware of who was on-line, but less than halfdid so on a daily basis. Two-thirds had set a customizedstatus message at least once. However, more than half did soinfreq
Interpersonal Connections Although communication involves multiple people, the role of interpersonal relationships is not well explained in media selection theories. However, several studies have investigated how communication technologies impact interpersonal relationships. Nardi [22] explains that successful interpersonal communication depends on a person’s communicative readiness. Many .
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
population ecology) and then subsequently covering interactions between species in a community (i.e., community ecology). However, to facilitate completion of the final paper, I have recently switched to covering community ecology and ecosystem ecology before population ecology. As both ecology and evolution have to be covered in the same .
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
