Organizational Media Design
Davis Foulger
Updated January, 2005
There is an opportunity to develop
a new curriculum in the intersection of Organizational Communication, Communication
Technology, and other specializations within the field of communication. Communication
departments are, I believe, uniquely positioned to teach this curriculum, which
fills a distinctive niche that should be of growing importance in the future.
The opportunity is associated with corporate process re-engineering, an increasingly
important activity in many companies are transforming their businesses by changing
the the way they manage business processes. The most common forms of process reengineering
use computer mediated communication systems to replace paper and face-to-face
decision making with electronic workflows. The overriding goals, in general, are
a combination of increased productivity, modified corporate culture, and a better
audit trail of decision making. The latter goal has become more important, recently,
in the wake of financial scandels and Sarbanes-Oxley
The first
goal of process re-engineering, increased productivity, is hardly a new one. It
has its roots in the hundred year old tradition of Scientific Management and the
principles of organization championed initially by Frederick Taylor. We generally
teach these principles early in Organizational Communication courses just before
we teach the more communication focused traditions of the Human Relations and
Human Resources schools. The concept of process re-engineering is generally far
more extensive, and generally far less rigorous, than Taylor's time and motion
studies. I have been involved in a number of process engineering efforts. Most
often I have acted in the role of "system architect", which is to say
that it was my job to turn a set of requirements that had been gathered by a business
process expert and turn them into a design that could be implemented by a programming
team, and deployed by business process management. The implementation would often
involve integrating a set of pre-existing pieces (workflow, groupware, document
processing, database, and other software components) to create a process specific
medium of communication (a "designer medium", if you will).
The
most important skills associated with the implementation of systems like these
are generally taught in computer science and information systems departments.
Most of the rest of the skills associated with such design aren't taught anywhere.
Requirements gathering is most often done by management professionals who know
a lot about managing people, budgets, resources, and schedules, but often don't
know very much about engineering communication processes. They most often gather
their requirements information from the managers responsible for the processes
rather than the people who perform the processes or do the decision making. They
often have only ad hoc knowledge of the technologies that can be used in the implementation.
They are often unaware of nuance in the existing process, and often leave critical
features out of the re-engineered process. They presume, much as any classic manager
out of the scientific management tradition might, that they can impose their solution
on the old process, yet they have often moved on to a different project before
their requirements are implemented or deployed.
The reality
of most business processes is that they aren't formally designed. They simply
happen, often growing more complex in increments as flaws are uncovered in existing
processes. Weick describes this process as sensemaking, an iterative enactment
of process in which we try to maintain stable processes, but periodically encounter
obstacles which we have to adapt to. It is usually the people who actually enact
the process that making these incremental changes, often by simply trying things
out and sticking with the first solution that works well enough to solve the problem.
There are formal processes for evalating and implementing such changes. In the
best known of these processes, Deming's Quality Circles and the ISO9000 Continuous
Improvement standard, the people who enact the process evaluate and attempt to
improve it by carefully tracking performance measures, studying ways in which
those performance measures might be improved, and acting changes through a consensus
decision making process. Business process re-engineering takes a more radical
approach by designing entire new processes to replace old ones. When it fails,
it is often because the process re-engineers neither fully understood the process
they were replacing nor the communication principles that must be supported in
almost any business process:
The field of communication is
well positioned to teach people how to research, specify, architect, deploy, and
administer these re-engineered processes. To do this, we need to build a curriculum
that doesn't just study new media, but provides tools for:
- Understanding
what characteristics of a medium makes one communication system more effective
for a particular use.
- Understanding the kinds of communication that the
system will have to support, including frequently overlooked non-process communication
like backchannel interaction and metacommunication, if it is to be successful
in the short term and productive in the long term.
- Discovering and evaluating
the key structural elements that the new system will need to account for, including
both the formal business rules that management is, at minimum, aware of and the
informal business rules that let people get the job done. The informal process
is often overlooked in re-engineering efforts, but can often be discovered with
ethnographic observation and engagement of process participants through careful
interviewing, structured focused groups, and "Work Out" style problem
solving sessions.
- Architecting a system that not only implements the management
requirements, but takes into account the longer term needs of participants to
be able to adapt and change the system to their needs. These end user customizations
of the system should not, in general, require either substantial technical expertise
or re-engagement of the implementation team. If the systems users can't make small
but essential changes on their own, the system will probably fail.
- Deploying
the system incrementally or, at minimum, testing the system with participants
in the existing process, at the earliest possible date. It is almost always easier
to solve big problems earlier rather than later.
- Administering/managing
the system in a manner that encourages and enables customizations by the systems
users.
We know how to teach all of these things. What we have not
done in the past is to embrace the kind of proactive mindset a program like this
entails. I have twice created proposals for undergraduate course sequences in
the area I now refer to as Organizational Media Design. The first, which included
the courses Comparative Media, Mediated Interpersonal
Communication, and Designing Media, was envisioned as a three course sequence
in new media technologies. The second, which included the courses Communication
Technology and Media, Communication Infrastructure, and Organizational Media Architecture,
was proposed as a part of an interview sequence at the University of Texas at
San Antonio. I also outlined an masters
degree program in the area for San Antonio and am currently working on a description
for a certificate program (for another school). Five of the six undergraduate
courses associated outlined above are described on this page.
I
increasingly regard the courses on this page as a four or five course sequence
that might be taught at either the undergraduate or graduate level. Clearly the
expectations would be higher at the masters or Ph.D. level, and other courses
(see my outline of what a masters
degree program might look like) would be required. There is a substantial
possibility that a program in this area would be sensibly taught on an interdisciplinary
basis (with business, computer science, information technology, and perhaps other
departments/schools)
- Comparative
Media
- Proposed as an introductory course in a sequence on new
media, this course is focused on giving students a broad understanding of communication
media, old and new, such that they can reasonably evaluate new media. I want students
to come out of this course understanding the different kinds of media, the ways
in which media of different kinds are similar and different, the reasons why they
are different, and the value associated with those differences. The course directly
extends the primary themes of a book I am currently writing: Characteristics
of Media: the message beneath. I will be teaching a variant of this course,
using chapters from Characteristics of Media, as a Masters-level seminar in Spring,
2005. In an undergraduate sequence I can envision a variant of this course as
either a large lecture freshman course that introduces students to the wide variety
of ways in which people communicate with each other or a smaller sophomore level
course that explores the media systems within which we use language to create
and consume messages. Indeed, one might readily imagine a three or four sequence
in comparative media that would have value in a range of specialties, including
media management, public relations, education, law, and organizational management.
- Communication
Technology and Media
- Designed as an introduction to the communication
technologies which one might use in designing, building, maintaining, or administering
media systems. The focus is on communication technologies, old and new, and the
media they make possible. This is a particularly rich course for me from a research
perspective, as it forces me to continually confront the intersection between
technologies, the media they make possible, the things we use media to accomplish,
and the ways in which people adapt media to their needs. It is a particularly
rich course for students insofar as they learn the construction materials with
which our communication systems are built and obtain some minimal experience in
using them (to build a trivial interactive medium using stock parts). I have yet
to teach this course, but it introduces and directly extends the primary themes
of a book I have outlined and plan to write soon: Building Time, Space, and
Scale Machines: the Invention and Evolution of Media. I envision this as a
sophomore level course.
- Communication
Infrastructure
- Designed as an intermediate level course in a sequence
on communication technologies, this course focuses on one of the most fundamental
building blocks of electronic and computer-mediated communication systems, the
channels of communication through which messages physically flow as they move
from one person to another. There is an entire discipline of architecture, network
architecture, that is focused entirely on this problem. This course introduces
students to this discipline, the specific component parts that need to be understood
in order to master it, and gives them practice building toy network infrastructures.
These infrastructures are a major subcomponent of my theory of media invention
and evolution. This course is the most likely in this sequence to compete with
existing courses in Computer Science or Information Technology, and may be usefully
specified as a corequisite from those departments. The focus in the source is
not programming, however. It is understanding the infrastructures and workflows
that provide the fabric of any communication system. This aspect of the course
will likely distinguish it from courses in Computer Science (although perhaps
not from the Information Technology course work associated with Library Science
programs). I envision this as a junior level course that prereqs Communication
Technology and Media.
- Designing
Media and Organizational
Media Architecture
- Designing Media was initially proposed as an
upper division course in a new media sequence as SUNY Oswego. Organizational Media
Architecture was proposed as the upper division course in the sequence at San
Antonio. The two course proposals are similar in concept. Both focus on giving
students the knowledge and skills needed in order to implement a medium of communication.
The difference in the courses that may usefully distinguish them is the orientation
each has to the implementation process. Designing Media focuses on the problem
of creating an computer-mediated communication system using off the shelf parts
(e.g. with little or no programming) that solves a communication problem. Its
intent is to make students competent creators of interactive web site components
that support site interaction, distributed workflows, and/or electronic commerce.
The focus is more on creating a medium that is useful to people than it is to
teaching requirements-based development process that is more typically associated
with organizational process reengineering. Organizational Media Architecture,
by contrast, is directly oriented to training students to act in an intermediate
role in organizational process reengineering efforts. The intent is to train students
to be effective intermediaries in this process, acting in such roles as requirements
engineer, application architect, project manager, and system administrator. Both
courses would train students in the processes of requirements collection, scenario
development, and communication system design. The former course would provide
a focus on off the shelf groupware, workflow, and other components that can be
configured to solve simple communication problems. The latter course would provide
an additional focus on the consulting process and its requisite interaction with
both the managers who request such projects and the technical experts who implement
them. These courses are a direct extension of both my research program on the
structure of media and experience(at IBM and elsewhere; see my hypermedia
resume for details of this work) in these roles. The most interesting research
opportunity posed by this course is the exploration of organizational media design
patterns: the systematic ways in which different organizational systems satisfy
different sets of business rules with similar workflow solutions. I have some
preliminary research done in this area and I expect that at least one student
assignment would extend this work.
-
This
proposal originates in a Spring, 2004 conversation with Stuart Sigman (Dean at
Emerson College). In that conversation he reflected that my research program may
be difficult for departments to understand because, in its focus on media invention
and evolution, it is proactive in a field that remains largely reactive. That
comment triggered a conversation among a growing number of other scholars in the
field of communication whose research bear directly on issues of media design
and who are interested in expanding our field's curricular offerings in the area.
This description is a step in that dialog.
-