Communicating – Written vs. Oral

One message, different deliveries and different meanings!

The message in this email is the same words that were delivered via voicemail and then in person. Listed below is how I interpreted each message from the method it was communicated.

The email came across as trying to be polite and sensed that I had hindered the project; however, there was an undercurrent of understanding and apologizing for needing the information on short notice.

Understanding – I know you have been busy and possibly in meetings all day

Voicemail truly sent a kinder message in Jane’s tone of voice and conveyed a truer understanding than the email. No emphasis on the word ‘your’. Tone of voice implies his or her attitude to the message (Besson, Graf, Hartung, Kropfhausser, & Voisard, 2004).


Face to face – conveyed understanding but there was a tone of annoyance. Jane began with a smile and then it disappeared. She also used her fingers to show emphasis on the word ‘your’ in this phrase “because your report”, as well as, her voice inflection/intonation on the word.


Oral communication can be significantly more effective in expressing meaning to an audience because there are more signals such as gestures, intonation, inflection, volume, pitch, pauses, movement, and overall appearance (Ferraro & Palmer). When a person speaks, they have more control over the listener will hear and can alter their message while talking with the listener than a writer has over what the reader will read. Most times written words can be chosen with greater deliberation and thought. The exception is when a writer is writing as they talk or text.

Implications:
1. Need to know what and how you want your message to be conveyed.
2. Need to know yourself. Example: If you know your body language may be misinterpreted and your email written quickly may come across with room for misinterpretation, use voicemail.
3. Prior to beginning a project, discuss preferred methods of communication for each team member and use scenarios to truly understand which method will be most appropriate for that team member.
4. During post project assessment, ask project team members to rate your communication style during the project and request an explanation for the rating.

Therefoe, communication is an integral part of any relationship. Therefore, it is important to know yourself, your most effective means of communication, and adapt them based on the needs of your team and the individuals on the team.

Ferraro, V., & Palmer, K. (n.d.). Differences between oral and written communication. Retrieved from http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/speech/differences.htm

Besson, C., Graf, D., Hartung, I., Kropfhausser, B., & Voisard, S. (2004). The importance of non-verbal communication in professional interpretation. Retrieved from http://aiic.net/ViewPage.cfm/page1662.htm

Division-wide Orientation Program

Overall project was to design a new hire orientation training curriculum to be used by all lines of business within a call center for a major financial company. The course outcome was and is still successful; however, from a project perspective there are many tools and processes that could have been used that would have allowed for a more successful project plan and better outcomes to the project team.

“Post Mortem” Questions

In reviewing the various project phases many were on target; however, in hindsight, some could have been performed better. Let’s take a look.

Phase 1: Determine Need and Feasibility

All major stakeholders agreed there was a need for a division-wide orientation program, especially during a two-company integration. It was important for new employees to understand the company’s mission, vision and strategies. One area that could have been improved upon was better organization of source documents from all sources (Portny, et-al, 2008, p. 33) and enhanced inclusion of other company divisions, and then a comprehensive document outlining the sources, division and content to be considered.

Phase 2: Create Project Plan

The first item to mention is that I served as the primary ID and the PM. According to Allen & Hardin, this is feasible because 53% of the time is spent performing PM projects and 47% as ID. However, this was my first project using project management tools so my numbers were skewed. Many instructional designers are ill-prepared to manage the resources, schedules, and budges associated with ISD projects (Allen & Hardin, 2008, p 75). I do think there are advantages to have an ID be the PM; however, the PM/ID needs to add another ID to be the primary ID with me supporting them in the process. Therefore, I would not have been the person doing most of the design and development.

A detailed design, development, and review schedule was created. However, the flaw in the timeline was that the SMEs had multiple documents to review at the same time. Once the project began, the SMEs requested a second review of all the documents which was not considered in the timeline and overall schedule. Therefore, the timeline did not anticipate for any unknowns (Portny, et-al, 2008, p 41).
Additionally, a clearly defined audience list was not developed (Portny, et-al, 2008, p 274). If this list had been created, it would have allowed me to ensure all parties were informed throughout the project.

I did create a project task list, both in Microsoft Word and Project Management; however, I did not use the tools to their fullest capabilities. In other words, my task list was not as detailed as it could have been and I did not continuously update my project plan with changes so it was difficult to manage any crunch or overlapping deadlines. In other words, I did not create a Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) (Greer, 2010, p 15). If a WBS had been created and followed, risks would have been identified earlier and considered in the overall timeline to allow for the unknowns. This would have allowed the SMEs/reviewers additional time to complete their tasks and for the designers wiggle room during the development phase (Allen & Hardin, 2008, p 75).

As far as the right people involved, all SMEs were appropriately identified and their roles defined. All the SMEs proved to be very effective and valuable to the project and project meeting was conducted to share and review their responsibilities. A project roles and responsibilities document was created and each responsibilities assignments were made to designate primary, secondary and approval (Portny, et-al, 2008, p 96).

Another project tool that could have been more effective was the use of a clearly defined communication plan (Greer, 2008, p 15). A high level plan was created but because of the other issues; ID as PM, crunched timelines at the project initiation, and not all tasks being identified, the high level plan was implemented but more nilly willy or wishy washy than should have been. All communication seemed rushed because the deadline was looming.

Phase 3: Create Specifications for Deliverables and Phase 4: Create Deliverables

As far as the training development, my department has and uses established templates. However, this was my first design project using the department templates so the learning curve to gain a comfort level with them added to the design timeline and was not considered in the original schedule. Another aspect of the development and product deliverable was pulling each individual module into one document for ease of printing.

And as mentioned previously, the timeline was truly crunched due to overlapping documents to review and complete edits. It often seemed as though we were stumbling over documents.

Phase 5: Test and Implement Deliverables

This phase went more smoothly and most likely because I previously was a trainer and understood their expectations. The curriculum was implemented using train-the-trainer training sessions and a pilot program phase allowing ample time for feedback from other designers’ delivery observations and trainer feedback and surveys.
Another area that I would and should have done differently was the last phase of Evaluating and Ending Projects. I did not perform a post project evaluation (Portny, et-al, 2008, p. 404) which would have included a post project evaluation that would have gathered feedback on the overall project and uncover areas of project management strengths and improvements.

As you can see, the project was developed successfully with the exception of how it was completed. Phase 2: Creating a Project Plan of Project Management could have been more successful if many of the project tools and processes had been developed, implemented and followed. If I had to choose one project management tool to make sure I use the next time I am in charge of a project, it would be the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) (Gordon & McDonough, 2010, June 14).

Greer, M. (2010). The project management minimalist: Just enough PM to rock your projects! (Laureate custom ed.). Baltimore: Laureate Education, Inc

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.

Allen, S., & Hardin, P. C. (2008). Developing instructional technology products using effective project management practices. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 19(2), 72–97.

Copyright by Springer-Verlag, New York.
Gordon, A., & McDonough, M. (Ed.). (2010, June 14). What is a work breakdown structure? Retrieved from http://www.brighthub.com/office/project-management/articles/2645.aspx