Our 24 hour, connected, multi-platform world is supposed to make it easier to communicate with one another. So why, asks our anonymous blogger, is it often so much harder?
The ability to communicate around the world currently stands at a level that could only have been dreamed of even a mere 20 years ago. There’s E-mails, Skyping, Facetiming and any number of other nouns that have been turned into verbs by the hip kids. However there is also a bit of a problem in that some people do not actually reply to messages sent.
I must admit that I’m a bit old fashioned with all this multi-platform communication malarkey and on the whole I just use e-mail and the telephone. I can hear some of you out there muttering “Just send a read receipt request” with regard to the e-mail but it has been my experience that these too have been ignored. The telephone is barely any better. As often as not the person you call isn’t available and when you leave a message they never fail in not getting back to you. As far as I’m aware the subjects I get in touch with people about are neither contentious nor trying, and of course a lot of them are related to matters of benefit to the recipient, yet there does seem to be a growing trend for just ignoring stuff.
I’m left wondering if this is a modern phenomenon and, if so then what’s at the heart of it? With the expectations raised by immediate contact from virtually any part of the world, including trains and cars, is the normal sequence of such situations now seen as redundant? Could it be there is more opportunity to hide from stuff – the modern equivalent of the bottom of the in-tray? I may well be out of step with the new norm but think this laissez-faire attitude to be unprofessional and mentally mark down those who practice it.
I personally also have a problem with the questions of etiquette regarding all this. First, there is no way of knowing if the message has reached the intended recipient and been ignored, intentionally deferred or merely that its been mislaid – either literally or metaphorically. A follow up could be tried but how many can you get away with before it potentially becomes irksome and you are undermining your own position? If it is the case of a supplier for a commonly available item then the solution is easy, you go and find another supplier. If it is more in the nature of establishing a collaborative relationship, or a single available source of supply then things become a bit trickier. As the established rules of non-immediate (and occasionally sporadic) communication are eroded the potential for doubt regarding intent, aligned with unnecessary conflict, increases.
The necessity of maintaining historic working practices in this way is, for me, reflected in the much vaunted idea of the paperless Design Office. Although we are not far off this I still print drawings out and I think it is because of the way the human brain processes information. There is a reason that A0 was generally the largest sheet size for drawings and A4 the smallest. If you select the size correctly then you can look over the whole drawing and immediately understand the information in each view and how they inter-relate, as well as looking at details where required. Not so important for understanding overall geometry in the world of 3D CAD but still significant when dimensioning complex objects. Relying on the screen results in much zooming in, zooming out and scrolling; making reconciliation of the macro and micro difficult. When A0 screens are common, then there will truly be no need for paper.
New technologies give new opportunities and we should explore how we use them without clinging onto historic methodologies. However we should also understand how those methodologies are arrived at if we are not to lose old advantages whilst creating new ones.
The brain / eye interrelationship needs to always be central to the method of representing design information. Equally, clear and disciplined techniques need to be maintained in communication no matter what the medium.
In our company service response times are vigorously driven, and there is no doubt that we stand out from the crowd on this, and customer loyalty has proven to depend on it. In our experience, UK suppliers, barring a few notable exceptions, understand the importance of this key performance element. Our experience with European supply chains, on the other hand, is lamentable. We bemoan a response of 24 hours from our UK supply chain, but typically find that translates to 5 days and more from European suppliers – they are, frankly, appalling – I can only think it’s a cultural thing – rather than generational??
There is a lot of difference between business and social communications, but unfortunately the boundary between them is now blurred. Precisely because we can gain immediate contact with anyone we have data for, the expectation is that we are #1 priority. Sadly, not everyone can be top of the in-tray, so the incoming demands are ranked by importance.
In business, there are chains of supply or process and we tend to respond to those invoking the greatest interest to the Company. Socially, no-one is going to suffer by a delay ( except concerning loved ones !) despite the apparent need for an instant response and the ‘risk’ of being ‘de-friended’.
The promised Paperless Office seems to have been rejected by the bean-counters and auditors who despite computers operating at the speed of light still work in analogue format and in Lunar periods.
Regarding the response from European suppliers, do we really think it’s going to improve after Brexit?
re. European suppliers, are you communicating in English (“the language of business” [sic]) or in their native mother tongue(s)?
Just a thought …..
Lunar periods? I am reminded of the axiom for far too many firms “Long Range Planning?” = What shall we do after lunch?
Are you sure? I once heard so-called industrial relations described as ‘the failure of human” relations.
If one treats one’s suppliers (or staff) as an enemy…don’t be surprised if they start to behave as such?
Perhaps different industries do have different cultures? I can only speak with great detailed knowledge of one-textiles- but the fact is that if one tries to force textile fibres…they simply break. We textile folk have to persuade the fibres to co-operate: and this carries over into relationships with suppliers and staff. The last ‘full’ strike in my industry was over 100 years ago: and this in an industry which has managed to deal with the most amazing and far-reaching changes in its international affairs.
Perhaps we are all now far too “accessible” and there seems to be a compelling need to answer phones in the middle of conversations or in meetings. I just wonder what all the torrent of conversations is about. Some of the banalities overheard on trains make for a rich (despairing) vein of humour.
It is possible to function adequately with e-mail and a land line. Some seem hopelessly addicted to their “technology” and would probably keel over if denied access.