I came through a quite old post from Leo Babauta at GigaOM on how to be effective with email (full article at http://gigaom.com/collaboration/7-rules-for-communicating-clearly-and-concisely-in-email).
Leo’s rules and my comments:
- Use the minimum amount of sentences. True and try to use bullets were make sense to be schematic
- State what you want right away. Email is not (only) an exercise of style. Is communication with no escapes, since no facial or hands expression help to clarify your thoughts. So go to the point as fast as you can
- Write about only one thing. True. This also helps recipients to answer one thing a time
- Leave out the humor and emotions. True, because recipients read the messages as they are, and you’re not there to explain is a joke.
- Use “If …then” statements. Is part of being schematic
- Review for ambiguity, clarity. Revise for conciseness. Review always the message and if you can )and the message is really important) save it as a draft and come back later
This post as a comment also at http://gigaom.com/collaboration/7-rules-for-communicating-clearly-and-concisely-in-email/?go_commented=1#comment-572170
The guys at Project Management knowledge write an article on the importance of communication and how to avoid pitfalls (full article at http://project-management-knowledge.com/avoid-communication-pitfalls-in-project-management).
I agree on the fact that communication is a basic point of PM.
In my experience, I also have to add the “translation” option: as I started to work as a PM on complex programs ranging from business plan to system development, I always found the need to make people speak same (or similar) language. Too much often I found the teams working on strategic design, having lot of difficulties to talk with those implementing the systems and viceversa. I think that communication in Projects is als to enable this kind of discussion.
This post as a comment also at http://project-management-knowledge.com/avoid-communication-pitfalls-in-project-management/comment-page-1/#comment-5985
The guys at Project management knowledge underlined the importance of lessons learned in project management (full article at http://project-management-knowledge.com/lessons-learned-in-project-management).
Here are my comments:
- That a project’s scope, time, and costs were woefully underestimated: True, and in this times of crisis at most time, you have very little contingency inside estimations. I also feel that having a planned “incremental” scope is usefull instead than having unreacheable goals.
- Which vendors to use and which to avoid in the future – and why: This is part of team shaping and is definitely a part of experience each one of us has
- Which members of your project team need extra supervision to get things done: this is quite tricky, because team members vary and is not said you will have your team well formed and ready when starting a project
- Which members of your project team can be given additional responsibilities and opportunities for leadership development : as above.
- That certain instructions and communication are unclear leading to confusion: communication is the key for success and makes the difference between skilled professionals and a team
- That your current tools/equipment/technology aren’t up to the task at hand : agree on this
- That some corporate policies are outdated and decrease the efficiency of project processes: This is an old story every time true 🙂
This post as a comment at http://project-management-knowledge.com/lessons-learned-in-project-management/comment-page-1/#comment-5981
Following the results of the survey I commented yesterday, I’ve been searching some
Some time ago Benj Edwards at Technologizer writes an article on history of Videophones (full article at http://technologizer.com/2010/06/14/videophones/).
Is really strange to see how much imagination was put into communication in the last 2 centuries.
And is amazing to see how much is closer to what we are using in our time.
Thinking at a reduction factor by 10 (means we are about 10 time faster in obtaining the results), I wonder which will be our way of communicating between next 20 years.
I think of 3d communication (olograms & co), immersive augmented reality and nearly doubled transmission speed.
What’s your opinion?
This post as a comment also at http://technologizer.com/2010/06/14/videophones/3/
Mathew Ingram at GigaOM (http://gigaom.com/author/mathewingram/) writes an article asking some questions on Facebook privacy, telling that “[…] Communications studies professor Nancy Baym said in an interview that she thinks one of the biggest problems for Facebook is that it has a “fundamentally naive and Utopian” view of what privacy means online, which stems from the fact that the company is run by “a bunch of computer science and engineering undergrads who don’t know anything about human relationships.” […]” (full article at http://gigaom.com/2010/06/01/facebooks-views-on-privacy-are-naive-and-utopian-prof-says).
Facebook views on privacy are “utopian” and are mainly the result of two concurring factors:
- on one side the utopian concept of anything available to everyone, that underlies the concepts of responsability in charging datas and using them. If this assumption was true, we won’t have no spam, frauds,…
- on the other side Facebook management being non capable of managing what is a real complex architecture on IT POV. As I said other times, if you consider for a moment the risk that “maliciuos” people are around us trying to do something strange with our datas, as the owner/manager of Facebook you have the due to leave apart thoughts of freedom and equality and make barriers to defend datas given to you.
This post as a comment also at http://gigaom.com/2010/06/01/facebooks-views-on-privacy-are-naive-and-utopian-prof-says/?go_commented=1
To communicate is the beginning of understanding.
Jacqui Cheng at Ars Technica publishes an article talking on the fact that “Lawsuits against anonymous bloggers are common, but the courts generally protect the right to speak unnamed. Now, one Tennessee blogger is about to be unmasked, reminding us that even Internet anonymity has its limits—and that making accusations of arson, drug abuse, and tax evasion can carry consequences.” (full article at http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/10/anonymous-real-estate-critic-on-the-verge-of-being-unmasked.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss).
As I said some other times, I don’t think internet anonymity is a right. Better: is not a right everywhere, because most of us, luckily, don’t live in a regime and so talking behind a nickname is not a protection, is just a difefrent way of communicating.
For those belonging to the minority living under a regime, anonimity should be a right to be defendend to the very last extent. For the other (the majority), internet is a media not to be abused.
And so if anyone offends or those something against laws, should be prosecuted like any other.
This post as a comment also at http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums?a=tpc&s=50009562&f=174096756&m=346000991041&r=765003991041#765003991041
Catherine Forsythe at Lockergnome (http://www.lockergnome.com/forsythe/author/forsythe/) writes a good article on the real weight that should be given to numbers presented in Twitter (full article at http://www.lockergnome.com/forsythe/2009/06/23/the-reach-of-a-twitter-post/).
Among other things she explains that “[…]
There is a belief that the number of followers is the critical factor on Twitter. The reasoning is that the person with the largest number of followers has the largest ’soapbox’.
That might not be true.”
I agree on this point.
In my opinion sometimes, like this one, big numbers are appealing but misleading: it’s more meaningful to have fewer followers but counted right than a pyramid of cascaded followers.
This also because information meaning, consistency and “weight” changes (honestly not only decreasing) through different levels of cascading (or retweeting).
I agree with Catherine: Good content counts more than number of followers and, I add, because enables the potential of pyramid sharing.
This post also at http://www.lockergnome.com/forsythe/2009/06/23/the-reach-of-a-twitter-post/#comment-35619
Matt Hartley at Lockergnome writes an article asking if really Digg has this great business model some think it has (full article at http://www.lockergnome.com/web/2009/06/09/is-digg-really-that-great-of-a-business-model).
On eof the things he says is that “Down the road, with nothing more than sheer volume, I can see Digg moving itself into the green with regard to actual earnings without more funding. But I also think that they could do so much better with better, more on topic advertising”
What follows is my comment:
“I agree on the fact that Digg is a way to get lot of people on board.
I think that Digg has a quite solid idea behind.
But I also think that Digg has to find some way to differentiate from other “news sharing sites”, also in the way used to make revenues.
Sometimes reminds me something that has happened in communication within telco.
In late 90’s SMS for GSM were a break through because of easiness of use (an Digg has it), no frills look and velocity of use (and Digg has at different extent both of them).
Since MMS have been introduced, high value services (with advertisement built in) helped their diffusion.
But this times are passed.
I see Digg (or some similar service) using in the near future something more disruptive than “simple advertisement”. What will it be? I don’t know, but the one who will get the point will get in the green and survive in this niche created by Digg and similar sites.”
This article as a comment also at http://www.lockergnome.com/web/2009/06/09/is-digg-really-that-great-of-a-business-model/#comment-149412
Matt Hartley at Lockergnome, in his article, asks the question if Twitter will be able to compete with Facebook (full article at http://www.lockergnome.com/web/2009/06/09/can-twitter-compete-with-facebook/).
What follows is my comment:
“I think that competition for these two services can be spotted in their diffusion, but not in the use people make of them.
Of course we are talking about social networking medias, but the use of two media adresses different communcation needs:
- Facebook targets medium or long lasting networks of people, with a share of informations and contacts
- Twitter seems to me something faster and quite similiar to SMS for cellphones.
I don’t see them competing, while I’m quite sure they (or someone else) will find an aggregator, providing an integrated way of communicating (in a faster and more effective evolution of the chat system now available).
This article can be also found as a comment at http://www.lockergnome.com/web/2009/06/09/can-twitter-compete-with-facebook/#comments