Week 3: Communicating Effectively

The same, exact message in three distinct forms. It’s pretty amazing how the exact same words can be delivered in three different tones through three different mediums. I reacted completely differently from one modality to the next, and it’s strange to feel such different sensations about the same message in different formats in such a short period of time. Here’s what I thought:


• Email: I personally preferred the email modality of the request, and email is really the form of communication I use most in my job. The formality of the email, being in written form, seems to drive home the urgency of the request more effectively. The email is very well written, which I also prefer, and gives a couple of suggestions as to how Jane’s request can be fulfilled. The written email is respectful of Mark’s time (“I know you’ve been busy;” “I really appreciate your help.”), and explains exactly what is needed and why. Plus, the request is documented and a communication stream can be preserved, in writing, between Mark and Jane. If Mark emails back stating that Jane will have the report by 3pm, a written record of that promise is created and Jane has something to hold Mark to, or show management as explanation for her late report if Mark backs out on his promise.

• Voicemail: I found this the worst modality of the three. The tone of voice on the recording was flippant and whiney, and, depending on office size, if Jane wants to talk to Mark regarding the ETA of the report, why call and not just stop by his cube? Also, speaking from personal experience, it’s very easy to ignore voicemails. Just a quick delete of the message and it’s out of mind.

• Face-to-face: I appreciated this modality as well; not quite as much as email, but pretty close. Jane shows commitment to the request by physically stopping by Mark’s cube. The face-to-face method also gives a chance for instant feedback to be given by Mark: “Sure Jane, I’ll have that report to you by 3pm.” By having the face-to-face, Jane puts Mark on the spot a little bit, but is able to get a quick answer. After the face-to-face, to further cement the request, Jane can follow up with Mark with a quick email to confirm the delivery time. As stated several times in this week’s video media, always document the information communications (Laureate Education, 2010)!

When working with team members in the future on projects, I really will keep phone communication to a last resort. With so much opportunity for distance face-to-face with Skype and other video conferencing technologies, phone calls/conference calls are becoming obsolete. The video media this week also classified which communication methods should be used as an reflection of the importance of the information being shared: “Important communication is best delivered with all team members present (Laureate Education, 2010),” so in-person or video conferencing is best in these situations. For follow-ups, informal communications, or clarifications, email works best to detail conversations and document these conversations in writing.


Reference:

Laureate Education. (2010). Video media presentation retrieved November 17, 2010, from http://sylvan.live.ecollege.com/ec/crs/default.learn?CourseID=4603377&Survey=1&47=5918289&ClientNodeID=984650&coursenav=1&bhcp=1.

Project Autopsy - What Killed "im, Doc?

I created a financial aid tutorial for my team of enrollment advisors once about a year ago, and for the most part, it was a modest success. Basically, I created a PowerPoint taking them through the process a student goes through to accept his financial aid award through the myWalden page so that the team could better assist students through the process itself should they need it. The idea was to increase student support and customer service, and at the same time benefit the enrollment advisor by increasing total Talk Time, a metric used for review purposes on a quarterly basis. The tutorial was about twenty-five slides long, included screenshots of my own student financial aid account, and navigated the user through all aspects of the financial aid acceptance process, from locating the documents to exactly what those documents looked like (i.e. Master Promissory Note, Entrance Counseling, etc). There were elements that were successful and others that were not so successful, and with a firmer grasp of project management concepts, I think I could’ve did a little better job.

First, the good news. My team was able to see the financial aid process through the eyes of a student, and got some very useful insight into the documents needed for completion of the process as well as some topics of conversation to bring up with students on the phone to guide them through. The PowerPoint wasn’t too long, and included enough screenshots of an actual student financial aid account to graphically tell the story as opposed to an endless sea of bullet points. I also included back and forward buttons in the presentation so the user could navigate backward as well as forward in order to access earlier slides for review. I heard good things from my team initially; they stated that the presentation looked good, took a smooth and steady course through the brass tacks of the acceptance process, and allowed for an acceptable freedom in navigation without stranding the user. From the feedback I did acquire, the team was able to glean useful information from the presentation, and for that reason, I can be confident of some level of success with it.

While the team found value in the presentation, there could have been improvements made. From a project management stand-point, I think the organization of the project itself could’ve been better defined. I was the only one working on the project, but that shouldn’t mean that a well defined Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) and/or Linear Responsibility Chart (LRC) was/were unnecessary. A WBS would’ve detailed a “hierarchical representation of all work to be performed in [the] project (Portney et al., pg. 86, 2007),” and would’ve have given me a concrete plan to approve or revise. With a well defined WBS, an LRC may be superfluous in this instance, especially considering all work would be assigned to me, but the LRC might have helped to schedule the work and prioritize the elements of the project. The LRC could have also helped to organize my duties as I assumed different roles: As the project manager, a task would have been to approve the WBS, and an LRC could’ve helped me to track that approval; as a task leader, a duty would be to approve completion of an element of the presentation, and the LRC would allow for this approval to be concretely represented. The whole idea behind these documents is to create a sense of organization and accountability, so even though I was the only employee on the project, value can still be found in the process of creating and utilizing the documents themselves.

So, while the project wasn’t a total bust, more organization from a PM perspective could’ve brought the financial aid tutorial project to new levels of utility. Now that the concepts of project management have been revealed to me (and as they continue to be revealed), I can only imagine how useful they will become on future projects, solo or otherwise.


Reference:

Portny, S. E., Mantel, S. J., Meredith, J. R., Shafer, S. M., Sutton, M. M., & Kramer, B. E. (2008). Project management: Planning, scheduling, and controlling projects. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.