1. Exploring The Workplace
Communication Ecology
Thea Turner, Pernilla Qvarfordt, Jake Biehl,
Gene Golovchinsky, Maribeth Back
FX Palo Alto Laboratory

2. Workplace Communication
Modern workplace is inherently collaborative
Collaboration relies on effective communication
Build common ground
Foster new ideas
Resolve conflict
Examined use of communication methods over 15 months
Results understood holistically within Communication
Ecology
2

3. Why Communication Ecology?
Ecology
interactions of people with environment
networks of relationships among entities
In communication ecologies:
communication methods: face-to-face, email, IM, SNS, ...
methods are channels through which we communicate
these resources are selected differentially
people inhabit different niches within environment
3

4. Previous Work
Often focused on single communication method
show value of method
rarely examined impact on overall practice
Rarely provide understanding of long-term use
Often done in experimental setting
Frequently at universities or very large companies
4

5. Communication Ecology Study
Examined communication practice in small company
Two surveys on communication practices a year apart
method use, frequency of use, clients, features
Analyzed only those taking both surveys
27 people representative of organization’s diversity
Interviewed subset of participants 2 months later
5

6. Communication Method Usage
•We!-established methods continued to be used
6

7. Communication Method Usage
•We!-established methods continued to be used
• IM, Social Networks and Blogs saw significant adoption
7

8. Frequency of Use for Participants Who Reported Using Method
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Less than
Monthly
Not in
Last Year
Never N: 27 NA 27 27 23 23 25 19 22 11
• No decrease in we!-established methods (face to face increased)
8

9. Frequency of Use for Participants Who Reported Using Method
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Less than
Monthly
Not in
Last Year
Never N: 27 NA 27 27 23 23 25 19 22 11
• No decrease in we!-established methods (face to face increased)
• Instant Messaging, Social Networking, Writing Blogs, and
Virtual Worlds increased in &equency of use
9

10. Frequency of Use for Participants Who Reported Using Method
Daily
Weekly
Monthly
Less than
Monthly
Not in
Last Year
Never N: 27 NA 27 27 23 23 25 19 22 11
• No decrease in we!-established methods (face to face increased)
• Instant Messaging, Social Networking, Writing Blogs, and
Virtual Worlds increased in &equency of use
• Many newer methods had large increases over the year 10

11. Changes Over Year
Between two surveys
Continued use of face-to-face, phone, email and notes
More people using IM, Social Networking, and blogs
Increased use of IM, Social Networking, and blogs
Some work-related increase in use of virtual worlds
No increase in use of Wikis
Are there patterns in the increased adoption and use?
11

12. Looking for Patterns of Use
Used hierarchical clustering analysis
used data common to both surveys
treated participant by year as individual cases
variables included frequency of use for
methods
features: text chat, voice chat, video chat, IM file sharing
clients: AIM, GoogleTalk, Skype, LinkedIn, Facebook, Twitter,
Second Life, World of Warcraft
12

13. Communication Patterns
Analysis produced 4 groups
Basic: primarily F2F and
email, telephone less often
than other groups
Chat: Basic methods plus IM
(text), some voice chat and
IM file sharing
Social: Basic methods plus
SNS (LinkedIn, Facebook)
Communicator: heaviest user
of all methods
13

14. Transitions Over Year
Remember analysis treated participants in each year as
separate cases
Therefore can examine how people changed over course of
year
14

15. Initial State In 2008
Most in Basic, Social or Chat
15

16. Transitions From Basic
Basic group went from 8
people to 1 over year
Half migrated to Social
One quarter became
Communicators
16

17. Transitions From Chat
Chatters most likely to stay
with same set of methods
But 40% moved on to Social
or Communicator
17

18. Transitions From Social
Group size remained at 8,
but with significant
turnover in membership
Social most likely to
migrate to Communicator
Several did not add new
methods
18

19. Transitions From Communicator
Only one person in 2008
Continued to use range of
methods in 2009
19

20. Pattern In 2009
Number of people
Basic: 8 → 1
Chat: 10 → 8
Social: 8 → 8
Comm: 1 → 10
People adopted new
methods moving from
Basic toward Communicator
Adoption of methods does
not appear related to role
20

21. Adoption of New Methods
Added new methods without reducing previous ones
Why do people adopt new communication methods?
How do people select which method to use?
Survey in 2009: strengths & weaknesses of methods
Interviews: why adopted? when to use?
21

22. Nature of Conversation
Nature strongly influences selection:
Face-to-face: ideation, problem solving, sensitive issues
Email: asynchronous, persistent record, nitty gritty details
Phone: immediacy at distance
IM: quick exchanges
Social Networking: lightweight, social, personal updates
22

23. Separation of Conversations
Different clients for different purposes / partners
IM (internal, Skype, Yahoo, GTalk, MSN Live)
Email (work, home, etc.)
Social Networking (LinkedIn, Facebook)
23

24. Immediacy vs. Interruptions
Balancing user needs against partner’s
State and availability of partner if known
Urgency of communication
Cost of gauging availability
24

25. Groups: Adoption and Selection
People within a group talked about methods differently
examples
weaknesses of face-to-face communication
many in Basic, Chat, Social mentioned that you had to be in same place
and that it may take more time
Communicators never mentioned colocation, some brought up time
Instead they mentioned scheduling problems, lack of records, effects of
social skills or lack of them on conversation
Selection rules were somewhat different by group
Communicators had more fine-tuned applicability conditions
25

26. Conclusions
No single method meets all user needs
When new methods adopted, older ones not replaced
Many implementations coexist with differentiation
Users adopt a subset of tools according to their particular
communication style and needs, which may change over time
Design and study communication methods within
Communication Ecology rather than in isolation
26

27. Questions?
Exploring The Workplace
Communication Ecology
Thea Turner, Pernilla Qvarfordt, Jake Biehl,
Gene Golovchinsky, Maribeth Back
FX Palo Alto Laboratory
turner@fxpal.com