A compilation of information about Internal Communication Evolution and Trends can be found at the following Web site:

http://internalcommunicationtrends.wordpress.com

Evolution of Internal Communication Slides:

The article “Archivists Struggle to Preserve Crucial Records as Paper Gives Way to Pixels” in The Chronicle of Higher Education, by Florence Olsen, addresses the concerns over maintaining records of online information. The article focuses on important university documentation.

Several questions came to mind regarding the article:

1) If the information discussed is so crucial, why wasn’t it’s archival discussed before it was only documented online-only?

2) How does the tough decision of what to keep and what to throw-away in the digital world differ from the hard-copy world? Presumably the same decision must be made considering physical documents. Based on what records needed to be kept pre-Internet, it seems as though it would be fairly simple to know what online documents to print and archive.

3) Do we really need archived documentation of these items? Our culture (and that of Sweden and Germany) value written documentation much more than other countries. In areas like the Middle East, word-of-mouth agreements are valued with the same emphasis we place on written legal documents.

4) Why would you agree or disagree with the importance placed on keeping long-term records of grades? If they were archived for a year or two, wouldn’t that be sufficient?

5) Why not just print out copies of anything that needs to be archived?

“The Tragedy of the Commons” is a famous work by Garret Hardin. Published in 1968 by Science magazine, it offers concepts that are often referenced today without acknowledgement of where the philosophical credit is due. The article’s message is inherently relevant to modern life, and often referenced by academics and professionals.

Hardin is extolled for his concise analysis of what he calls the “tragedy of the commons”, the namesake of the article. When reading this work, it is important to keep in mind that is was written forty years ago. While the examples Hardin provides may be outdated, they are still surprisingly germane.

Hardin explains that “no technical solution” to a problem is, in fact, an acceptable solution. As people are faced with diminishing resources and a growing population, the race will be forced to make decisions as to what is truly finite. He argues that man needs to explicitly realize the difference between commeasurable wants versus needs. Sometimes this process relies on solutions that are solved by changing thinking processes rather than cyclically looking for practical solutions.Using his well-known example of a shepherd faced with the ethical question of personal versus common benefit when given the freedom to choose, Hardin explains the “tragedy of commons.” When faced with the option of benefitting from personal gain versus common gain, it is proven that a person will opt for personal gain – out of fear that all other people will choose the same option and therefore exploit him.

Hardin writes, “This is the rationale reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons…Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit—in a world that is limited.”

Hardin’s unfortunate truth is that “Freedom of commons brings ruin to all.”

His examples relate to modern day scenarios. Hardin uses The National Parks system as an example of a good that will be ruined with freedom. He advises that if kept free to all visitors, the parks will be exploited and deteriorate. Remember, his writing was done in the 1960s. Today’s his suggestion has been implemented, as many National Parks do require entrance fees. Mt. Rainier National Park is an example of such a park. Visitors can pay an entrance fee or purchase an annual pass to gain admittance.

He also uses the example of pollution as something that can be ruined for everyone due to a small number of the population. To me, this brings up the notion of, “Well, he’s already littering, why shouldn’t I?”

 Hardin mentions incentive programs as a means to end problems such as pollution. “The tragedy of commons as a cesspool must be prevented by different means, by coercive laws or taxing devices that make it cheaper for the polluter to treat his pollutants than to discharge them untreated.”

This is similar to e-waste programs today. The book Displacing Place compiled by Sharon Kleinman discusses the need for regulated programs in order to curtail the toxic destruction of the environment – an inherent result of e-waste. Some states, such as Massachusetts, have banned e-waste from landfills, requiring consumers to find a recycling plant. Some governments offer tax breaks for those who donate their gently-used computers to local schools. In Maine, it is mandated that producers must finance and take-back or recycle used products that consumers bring in. In California, an advance recovery fee is collected at the time of purchase, to fund recycle programs. Programs such as Cell Phones for Soldiers take the proceeds from donated cell phones to purchase calling cards for American troops. This is an incentive for consumers to do something good by donating their e-waste.

Hardin’s theory is referenced by Clay Shirky in the book Here Comes Everybody. He describes the tragedy of the commons as, “The minute one of the other shepherds keeps his sheep out in the pasture an hour longer than necessary, the only power you have is to retaliate by doing the same” (p. 52).

He uses the example of road maintenance to illustrate the tragedy of the commons and why taxes are mandatory: People would avoid paying taxes if they assumed their neighbors were already taking care of paying for the roadways.

In relation to MCDM, Shirky draws a connection between the tragedy of the commons and digital technology. He believes that new media will alleviate the tragedy, as it is now easier for like-minded, trustworthy people to form groups – thus eliminating any black sheep rule breakers. The transaction costs that once prevented the formation of such cohesive groups have lowered dramatically, thanks to digital technology. He writes that “Now that group-forming has gone from hard to ridiculously easy, we are seeing an explosion of experiments with new groups and new kinds of groups” (p 54). The Internet and mobile phones are now tools for collective action.

In Germany, the past and present of communication technology resounds through the cities. Ancient churches feature pre-literacy communication: colorful stained glass windows tell the stories of The Bible. Marienkirche (St. Mary’s church) in the northern town of Lübeck features an old Gutenberg press. In Berlin’s Alexanderplatz, a different St. Mary’s Church stands within the same sightline as the tallest structure in the country, Berliner Fernsehturm: the space-age-esque Berlin Television Tower (photo below).

Mobile technology has a presence with store front shops in historic buildings, offering carrier services from E-Plus and T-Punkt (photo below) the Germanic arm of T-mobile. There seems to be stronger trend of downloadable mobile features in Germany than Seattle. TV advertisements play consecutively to encourage text-based downloads of animated animals and women.

Photos by Andreas Steinhoff and Christy Luther:

I enjoyed reading the Technologies of the Third Mediamorphosis chapter of Roger Fidler’s 1997 book, “Mediamorphosis Understanding New Media.”One of his main points is that despite common perception, the catalytic events for today’s digital media presence occurred before World War II. The chapter made me question which of these generally comes first: the need for new technology (as Fidler argues) or the emergence of disruptive technology that is dismissed as unnecessary until widely adopted. I have read articles that support each side. Several questions came to mind as I read:

1) How do you think Benkler would react to the following statement by Fidler? “All [new forms of communication in the past two centuries] have had a profound influence, during this brief period, upon nearly every facet of our social, political, and economic systems, as well as our cultural identities and perspectives.” (p. 82)

2) Fidler also states, “the development of railroads created a ‘supervening social necessity’ for instantaneous communication and feedback across sectors.” What in today’s society parallels this development/relationship (if any)?

3) Ada Byron is mentioned on page 85, as an invaluable contributor to the development of digital language. Why does there seem to be a lack of information about her in the works of other authors? She seems like an interesting subject, particularly as a female contributor to technology.

4) In 1827, the Journal of Commerce “gained a much envied reputation for its innovative systems for news gathering” (p. 86). How will innovative systems for news gathering continue to emerge/prevail in the future?

5) Fidler states that the telegraph succeeded because it was recognized by major enterprises (p. 86). How does this compare to what it takes for an invention/innovation to succeed today?

6) Fidler also mentions that the telegraph brought about an expectation of immediacy in news reporting (p. 87). What role does this play in the development of America’s business methods? (Was this the beginning of the U.S.’s business standard of wanting things immediately and workers not taking time to relax – unlike countries like Sweden which offer copious holiday/vacation time or Spain which offers siestas and a more leisurely perspective to work-life-balance?

After viewing Brian’s presentation, I was inspired to embrace a minimalistic design as well. I enjoyed his presentation because it was more of a conversation aided by interesting visuals that structured his lecture.

I was also influenced by a recent power point presentation at work. The slides were incredibly text heavy and the screens had the “bells and whistles” of rotating text transitions. The speaker was so excited by the rotating slide that she developed that she stopped taking audience questions and had everyone watch how cool the slide was.

After the influence of these external factors, I outlined the topics I wanted to discuss and plugged in the pieces. I was nervous at the lack of text – meaning that I couldn’t just rely on reading my presentation and that I actually had to remember what to talk about.

My first take at presenting was definitely the least smooth, but it improved as I went along. By the end of my third presentation I felt relaxed and conversational; my confidence in my knowledge grew and I was able to speak freely and honestly. Presenting actually turned-out to be a lot more fun than I had expected.

My advice to subsequent presenters is to plan a logical outline and use minimalistic slides that remind you of the outline and don’t bore the audience. The slides will provide the framework to guide your discussion around, and as you present you will more-naturally recall what topics/examples to share with the class – as opposed to strictly reading “verbose” slide text. I would also suggest that presenters know their topic well, so they can tailor the discussion to the audience and questions that may arise. When faced with a question you don’t know the answer to, it works well to admit that you don’t have an answer, but that you can tie the question back to an area that you DO know about. An un-answerable question is also a good opportunity to engage the rest of the group in finding an answer.

Overall, it turned out to be a pretty fun experience to create a non-traditional presentation.

Based on the article “As We May Think”:

1. What kind of civilian-physicist response was there post-war that encouraged Vannevar Bush to publish this article? (ex: were the physicists themselves really THAT impacted? They most likely had physicist-type jobs before the war led them to war-time physics; what prevented them from returning to that type of pre-war work?)

2. What parallels can be drawn between the article and present-day human experience?

This line from 1945 seems to have some relevance today: “The summation of human experience is being expanded at prodigious rate.”

Centuries of development and improvements to communications technology have revealed fairly predictable production and market trends. The lifecycle of a product has been established, the theories of performance have been addressed and the pros and cons of competition have been identified.

In her book, “A Social History of American Technology,” Ruth Schwartz Cowan follows the introduction and displacement of communications technologies. Starting with the development of wireless telegraphy in 1887 and following history through to the 1990s’ popularity of cable television, Cowan uncovers the patterns of technological growth. The focus of her work, however, is the question of “Who should be in charge of all the various technologies of communication?” (p. 273).

Control has been a highly sought after position in the lucrative business of communications. Many factors come into play regarding control: Inventors claim intellectual property rights, governments want control over the nation’s infrastructure, entrepreneurs seek to topple incumbents for a piece of the cash flow, and the public is filled with amateurs who want the right to free use of communications technologies. Together, these factors have created a market in which a single front-runner in the communications and technology field has rarely stayed on top for long.

After British Marconi expanded to American Marconi and essentially controlled the U.S. communications infrastructure, the Federal Government realized the vulnerability of having the country’s network in the hands of foreigners – particularly during times of war. From that point forward, the U.S. government has made a point of keeping infrastructure localized and free of monopolies.

The path of development that Cowan follows is such:

Wireless Telegraphy -Wireless Telephony-Wireless Broadcasting-Television-Computers

Following is a slide show presentation intended to help guide discussions on these topics:

Similarities can be found between Cowan’s propositions and those of other experts. In “Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave,” Bower and Christensen acknowledge that “One of the most consistent patterns in business is the failure of leading companies to stay at the top of their industries when technologies or markets change” (p. 43). This relates to the lack of control that Cowan speaks of.

Tom Standage’s “The Victorian Internet” also touches on the topic: “Any industry founded on a particular technology faces the danger that a new invention will render it obsolete” (p. 180).

Modern examples of technology innovations and displacements include disk drives as studied by Bower and Christensen, the displacement of print media by online media, and the progression toward smaller yet more useful cell phones.

A part of Cowan’s work that stands out to me is her discussion of cable television as an important venue for special interest groups:

“By radically cutting the cost of transmission, satellites made special interest channels economically feasible, channels that would carry programs that appealed to only a segment of the nation’s audience; cartoon channels for children; instructional channels for schools; religious channels for fundamentalist; movie, music, and shopping channels…” (p. 291).

To me, this parallels the topics of Chris Anderson’s book, “The Long Tail,” and how the Internet today has aided the rise of special interest voices and products.

Cowan states that, “Cable television exercised a powerful, decentralizing force, creating new means by which independent points of view could be heard” (p. 292).

This is similar to how, through the World Wide Web, bloggers are given a platform from which to be heard, Amazon is able to serve customers with niche interests, amateurs can create online programming, and independent bands are able to share their music with the world.

While the control of the communications technology sector is constantly fought over, overarching good comes from the resulting innovations and improvements. Although consumers often don’t realize what they want (if they are already happy with their current technology), they will come to enjoy the benefits of new technologies that are often more efficient and less costly.

Sources:

Anderson, Chris. (2006). The Long Tail. New York: Hyperion.

Bower, Joseph L. and Christensen, Clayton M. (1995, January-February). Disruptive Technologies: Catching the Wave. Harvard Business Review, 43-53.

Cowan, Ruth Schwartz. (1997). A Social History of American Technology. New York: Oxford University Press.

Standage, Tom. (1998). The Victorian Internet. New York: Walker and Company.

Thesis

In recent years, there has been a resurgence of corporate executives realizing the value of well-managed internal communications with employees.

How have modern economic changes affected the importance of employer-employee relations? How is new media facilitating open lines of workplace communication? 

Statement of Intent

I intend to examine the issue with a threefold approach: I will reveal a brief history of corporate internal communications, define the reasons for its present day importance, and identify how electronic media is aiding the internal communications process.

In today’s age of information workers – and workplaces that have only human staff members as assets – it is increasingly important to have internal communications plans that keep employees and employers linked.

Companies are not just making products anymore – and when they are, the human role is often in the communications field of sales. For these reasons, it is important for businesses to keep staff members happy, informed and productive.

New media are now being used to help facilitate the process of employer to employee communications. Group Health in Seattle recently began using the micro-blog tool Twitter to communicate with staff members.

Citations

Mitchell, Joey; Ferrabee, David; Wright, Marc. (September/October 2008). How is your company or client using social media for employee communication? Communication World, 25:5, 17. Retrieved from EBSCOhost: http://web.ebscohost.com.offcampus.lib.washington.edu/ehost/pdf?vid=2&hid=9&sid=49b2879f-5947-49e5-9ce7-3d13bd394c93%40sessionmgr8

Ferrabee, David. (2006, July 6). Change and Internal Communication: The History of Internal Communications. Retrieved from Hill and Knowlton blog: http://blogs.hillandknowlton.com/blogs/davidferrabee/archive/2006/07/06/3641.aspx