Communications A Lost Art

When communicating technical information, personal communication can be quite interesting. For the most part, people tend to provide answers to questions that they are not adequately familiar with.

Kim Parker (pictured below), is Chairman and President of K. A Parker & Associates. He has developed a unique, revolutionary process model that is changing the way people and machines work in both the public and private sectors. Originally designed for technology implementation and deployment, it works with any type of project, computer-related or not.

By Kim A Parker, Chairman and President of K. A Parker & Associates

n today's brave new world, the comment that I hear most often is that people don't communicate well. This is understandable since the majority of the time our interaction is so little understood.

A recent example from a technical perspective illustrates the complexity of our communications process. The specifics are not important here but the source of the facts are.

When asked about a certain software package for certain machines, an individual replied that it wouldn't work. The individual did not quote his source or his experience but only stated that it did not work with the particular version of operating systems that was running on the majority of machines that this company was running. Later, when asked directly, he stated that some of the information was from product documentation, some of his information was from his experience with other similar situations, some of it was a relay of information from others, some was a negative reaction to the way in which his opinions and experience was being received by others. When others were asked about his concerns their replies were in a similar vein. The information that they had about his concerns fell into some of the same categories of hearsay, printed word, experience and emotional response. At this point the evidence is non-conclusive. The package in question has not been tested by any of these people on the machines in question and in fact, there may not be any problem at all.

The point of this discussion is to be able to understand what has been the obvious to some. That there are levels of understanding that leads to better communications. These levels can best be described by a series of definitions.

Understanding Level 0: If this were to be the most respected source of information then it could be said that this must be THE source. If it is something as simple as 1+1=2 then we might take it as it stands since the origin of this mathematical simplicity has been lost for a long time. The interesting thing with this particular absurdity is that the numbering system is an abstraction created for convenience. No one really has a level 0 understanding since the initial source of things is implied. Most of the modern world has dealt with the uncertainty of everything. We question the validity of claims that water is safe to drink, that cutting a tree to make shelter is correct for the environment or that the plants that we use for food are in fact good for our health.

Understanding Level 1: The next most respected source is experience. First hand is appropriate. "I watched her do it." is not quite the same. Watching questions the spectators' level of understanding of the process. In computers, it is important that 1. the machine performed the intended process repetitively without flaw, 2. the circumstances are identical in every respect to the tested situation, 3. an understanding that not all situations can be tested.

Understanding Level 2: Watching someone perform the activity. At least you know or you believe you know that this is working. The classic sales ruse is to demo a product that doesn't work repetitively or only with the demo data. You think it works because you saw it work.

Understanding Level 3: Someone that you respect (your personal experience with other facts this person has told you) told you that this process works. In the legal business this is called heresay. Notice the relationship between these levels and customer support facilities. The customer says "It doesn't work." and the support facility says "I can't duplicate your problem." what they are saying is "I don't believe you."

Understanding Level 4: "I read it in the manual." This neither implies understanding of the process nor does it have any basis in reality. The documentation may be out of date, incomplete or just plain wrong. Why do they have README files on software? Because the manuals are always out of date.

Understanding Level 5: "I heard it somewhere." The person doesn't remember the time or place let alone the circumstances or the context of the remark. This is a most dangerous comment because it is bordering on pure speculation with little factual content or source information. It is best that this information not even be repeated as it is likely to be totally fictional.

The problem with all of these nice levels and definitions is that even with them, communications can be misleading. Lets look at sources for information. Who has more credibility? The person who says "I engineered this computer.", the one that states "I manufactured it." or the one that says "I service it."? The answer is that none of them are credible. The engineer doesn't know what was actually built and doesn't know what the problems were with his design. The manufacturer doesn't know how it works or why and hasn't seen it perform. The service person sees flaws in workmanship but can't adequately judge design except for part placement and material suitability. Actually, the person that has tested the equipment is a better judge of what is credible than anyone. They also have a few blind spots. They may not have generated the tests so that they don't know why they are testing. They don't know why something doesn't work and they are not in a position to comment on the reason why it doesn't work.

In process reengineering it is extremely important that we communicate. When it comes right down to it, English (or whatever language abstraction you use) must provide the structure and basis for this communication. In most languages a certain basic structural foundation is consistent. The formal structure can be broken into it's subsequent parts of subject, verb and modifying adjectives. In most languages there is also a shorthand or idioms that defines the color or timbre but do nothing for the factual content of the information being conveyed. In a learning situation, facts cannot stand alone, they must be relational in nature, founded solidly on previous knowledge or experience for that particular individual receiving the information. So with process reengineering, we communicate first by defining the way in which we will communicate. We will only record that information that can be related to verb, adjective, noun constructs. We are sticklers for pulling out implied nouns and verbs since many times this is the source of our non-communication. This is also very unsettling for most people initially since the pace of communications seems too slow but rapidly begins to pick up as the group communicates on a new level of understanding. That is, each member is building their own experiences and foundation for future learning through their participation. They feel more relaxed about asking questions. They start to question the value of their jobs. I have seen individuals get very defensive when it becomes obvious to the group that that person's job is non-value added.

It is interesting to see the process of becoming familiar at work. The first step in two people getting to know each other is the social greeting. Then questions of job, pets, hobbies, family. Usually in ascending order of closeness to one's personal attributes. These are what I call realms of influence (the subject of another letter!). Then as familiarity grows, maybe into a dating and then a spousal relationship, the communications get more and more detached. Actually, the communications is still there, the content of the communications is what is sparse. If every night when you get into bed, your spouse asks you if you put out the cat you would eventually get very annoyed. In some situations you may even verbalize this annoyance. So, what we learn to do is to get the information without asking. We may listen for the door closing or the meow of the cat as they are tossed out. We may also then just assume that this chore is being taken care of and not question. In short, we have skipped several steps in communications. We have skipped the most important one in fact: why do we put the cat out at night? Have you ever even had this discussion? This is what has happened to our businesses. We haven't discussed why we do what we do. That is why process reengineering is so important. It opens up the discussion and does it with the structure and foundations of language as a basis for communications.