Communication media

Participants interacted with their colleagues using a variety of communications media. They considered that some types of media facilitated the transfer of policy knowledge, while others hindered the transfer of such knowledge. Often participants tended to use the communications media that “got the best outcome”, yet the choice of media was often constrained by time differences and the distance between them and their colleagues.

6.4.1 The use of face-to-face communication

Most participants described face-to-face communications as “the best”, and the one that “dominates other forms of communication”. In particular, they felt it was the

110 most effective and efficient media when discussing issues such as “controversial types of policy”.

One reason why participants preferred face-to-face communication was that it allowed people to understand each other very quickly. When commenting in the open-ended questions in the survey, a participant stated that compared to other types of media, face-to-face enabled quicker understanding of “subtle and complex issues”.

When discussing policy related issues, participants found that the use of body language, facial expression, and voice intonation enabled them to receive and deliver richer and more complex information. May stated that being able to pick up facial expressions and body language was incredibly valuable when dealing with controversial issues, and receiving an immediate response was also important when they were brainstorming. Other participants made similar comments; they believed the use of these natural communication cues helped people save time in a discussion by emphasising “important points”, and clarifying “difficult points”. Their comments are in alignment with prior studies such as Murray and Peyrefitte (2007) and

Jasimuddin (2007), who have highlighted the importance of these communication cues for tacit knowledge transfer.

As Nonaka and Konno (1998) suggested, people exchange tacit knowledge between each other through social interaction. Catherine believed that face-to-face

communication facilitated the transfer of policy knowledge not only by allowing the use of multiple communication cues, but also by supporting the development of the personal relationship. She stated that through face-to-face communication, people learn the whole pattern rather than only the ideas.

However, face-to-face communication is not always possible and raises some problems at times. Sue was concerned with the practicality of face-to-face communications. She believed that one of the major barriers for its use was the

111 “tyranny of distance”; people are not always in the same environment, and they face the challenge of time and distance. Additionally, Amanda thought one of the

disadvantages was that “you have no concrete evidence of what actually is discussed”.

Participants suggested that communication media such as video-conferencing allowed them to overcome some of the constraints of distance and provided a face-to-face-like environment. Sam had these virtual meetings very often because the members of his team were located distantly. He found video conferences and virtual meetings were very useful under such circumstances because these media allowed people to have discussions that offered many of the benefits of face-to-face meetings, (such as the ability to observe facial expressions and other cues) without the cost of having to travel. Being able to support people to “co-presence” without “co-location” (Boisot, 1998), these communication media have a great capability to support the transfer of policy related knowledge.

In summary, face-to-face communication was the first choice for discussing policy related issues. It allowed them to build mutual understanding very quickly, it

delivered intended meaning through multiple cues, and it enabled them to establish personal relationships. Face-to-face communication was the first choice for

participants to discuss “difficult points”, “controversial issues”, “interesting points”, and “subtle and complex issues”. However, new technologies such as video

conferencing enabled many of the benefits of face-to-face without the constraints of travel and expense.

6

6.4.2 The use of email

Several participants pointed out that they used email to discuss policy related issues. They believed that the advantage of email communication when discussing policy was convenience, ease of use, and capability of information transmission and processing. Participants all agreed that one of the advantages of email

112 partners. Amy considered email an easy way to get the message to other people “without actually having to physically be here”. Sue had similar comments about the advantages of email. Further, she believed that email could be used synchronously under certain circumstances. She stated: “Email communication, although it's not real time, in some instances it can be. If you are both sitting at the desk at the same time, you can get these points clarified quite quickly”. In other words, while you cannot see or hear each other, you can respond to the other person in an almost real-time way.

When using email, participants felt that it was valuable to be able to spend time to process the received message rather than having to respond to it immediately. They were also able to revisit and reprocess received messages over time. As commented by Sue:

If you rely on email traffic, you can track the passages of the conversation, you can store them and you can go back to them another day. That can be valuable as well.

Furthermore, Mark considered email communication an efficient way to make sure that everybody had a copy of the same thing.

Despite the advantages of email communication, participants felt that it was not the ideal media for the transfer of tacit knowledge. Email was not very personal, and there was no caring and emotions visible to the participants. Sue’s concern was more around the timeliness of receiving feedback. She believed that because most people are bombarded with email they need to prioritise their feedback based on urgency, which might create delays for some of the conversations.

Compared to face-to-face communication email has a limited capability to deliver rich information, which could lead to misunderstanding or misinterpretation of delivered message. As May said:

113

Not to say that face-to-face discussion can’t be supplemented by email or electronic chat or other forms but in those forms you miss a huge amount of additional signals that can lead to things getting off track and misinterpreted very easily.

Catherine had such an experience when she was making a joke to one of her

colleagues in an email. That colleague misinterpreted it and thought she was angry. She suggested that a text message may be interpreted differently depending on the context, and when using email communication attitudes and emotions were

detached from the messages, which could lead to misinterpretation of a message.

6

6.4.3 The use of multiple media

Several participants mentioned that they used a mix of both synchronous media and asynchronous media for the discussion of policy related issues with their colleagues.

Mark usually sent a precis of the face-to-face discussion via email to ensure that everyone was clear about the outcome of the discussion. He believed that the use of multiple media made the discussion more efficient. Catherine felt that sending documents via email to support face-to-face discussions was more productive and efficient than relying solely on one single means of communication, because email transmitted information efficiently, and face-to-face discussion gave people opportunity to explore ideas and thoughts. She said:

When sending emails, people can show me particular things, documents or diagrams, we can discuss actual examples… [When communicating

face-to-face] we have an opportunity to discuss it together so we get to hear a variety of questions about things. I wouldn’t want things just sent around email and told what to do; I wouldn’t have the opportunity to discuss and hear about what people thought.