We consider TIKI
Using a specific example, we compare the transaction costs of communication for email and a corporate social network.
Consider an example. You need to make a decision, but this requires data from four colleagues. So you write an email and send it to the team. The first person answers at all, as well as the second. But the third and fourth answer only to you. In addition, without notifying you, the fourth person sends an email to the fifth, because he believes that he should also take part in the decision. The fifth answers all. You put it all together and send the result to everyone. You also receive letters from the first and second with the question of why the fifth was included in the discussion. You answer that nothing terrible, let it turn on. The fifth person redirected the letter to the sixth, which this time answers all, but he did not receive the last letter. To include him, you send him the last letter and put in a copy of all the others, to let them know that the sixth is also included in your discussion. Now you write at all with the final decision and ask for their confirmation. The sixth person asks for a small change, which you agree with, and makes this change. You are again sending email at all for confirmation. And everyone sends an email, I agree. Eventuallyall this mess In this process, 61 e-mails were sent to make one decision.
Instead, you can send a message to a corporate social network. After seeing your message, everyone responds, reads the responses of other participants and offers to connect the fifth and sixth participants, which you do. Those, in turn, read the entire correspondence, add a couple of their comments, and everyone sees the same picture. You compile the final solution, the sixth participant adds a small change. You fix and everyone agrees. And this is done in just 16 messages.
')
Let's enter a parameter, which we call the TEC, abbreviated Transaction Communication Cost. This parameter includes the efforts of the communication participant to support the communication itself - creating, sending, reading, searching, and so on. As a result, all these microtasks add up to the time spent on supporting communication. The less TICs in the discussion - the less time is spent on it and the more questions you can solve in the face of time constraints.
I propose to evaluate tics for two ways of communication - e-mail and corporate social network. In the first approximation, we assume that TICs linearly depend on the number of messages. In this case, the cost of communication for the two ways will look like this:
It would seem more convenient to communicate in a corporate social network from the very beginning, but the following factors should be taken into account:
Therefore, in the general case, the graphics of TICs should look like this:
Total. With short communications involving a small number of people, it is easier to use e-mail. If communications are longer and / or involve a wider range of participants, the corporate social network becomes more profitable. By my personal assessment, the turning point comes at the time of 3 people x 3 iterations. And the longer the correspondence lasts, the more profitable it becomes to correspond in the corporate social network. Appreciate your time :).
Bonus That same video , on the basis of which we conducted a mini-study.
Vladimir Ivanitsa
viva@supereon.ru
Consider an example. You need to make a decision, but this requires data from four colleagues. So you write an email and send it to the team. The first person answers at all, as well as the second. But the third and fourth answer only to you. In addition, without notifying you, the fourth person sends an email to the fifth, because he believes that he should also take part in the decision. The fifth answers all. You put it all together and send the result to everyone. You also receive letters from the first and second with the question of why the fifth was included in the discussion. You answer that nothing terrible, let it turn on. The fifth person redirected the letter to the sixth, which this time answers all, but he did not receive the last letter. To include him, you send him the last letter and put in a copy of all the others, to let them know that the sixth is also included in your discussion. Now you write at all with the final decision and ask for their confirmation. The sixth person asks for a small change, which you agree with, and makes this change. You are again sending email at all for confirmation. And everyone sends an email, I agree. Eventually
Instead, you can send a message to a corporate social network. After seeing your message, everyone responds, reads the responses of other participants and offers to connect the fifth and sixth participants, which you do. Those, in turn, read the entire correspondence, add a couple of their comments, and everyone sees the same picture. You compile the final solution, the sixth participant adds a small change. You fix and everyone agrees. And this is done in just 16 messages.
')
Let's enter a parameter, which we call the TEC, abbreviated Transaction Communication Cost. This parameter includes the efforts of the communication participant to support the communication itself - creating, sending, reading, searching, and so on. As a result, all these microtasks add up to the time spent on supporting communication. The less TICs in the discussion - the less time is spent on it and the more questions you can solve in the face of time constraints.
I propose to evaluate tics for two ways of communication - e-mail and corporate social network. In the first approximation, we assume that TICs linearly depend on the number of messages. In this case, the cost of communication for the two ways will look like this:
It would seem more convenient to communicate in a corporate social network from the very beginning, but the following factors should be taken into account:
- Connection of the participant in the correspondence. If it is in your corporate social network, it is simple, and if it is not there or it is an external member, then you must first invite it to the network, and only then talk. There is no such problem in the e-mail, it is enough just to know the recipient's address.
- Attachment of one or more files / documents to the message. In the email it is elementary. But in order to put one or several files into correspondence on a social network, most often you first need to upload the file to the network, then attach a link to it.
- Search for information from past correspondence. In a corporate social network is easier because all correspondence is presented in one tape, the search is carried out not only in your mailbox, but throughout the entire system, there is also a search by tags. In e-mail, the complexity of the search grows nonlinearly, the longer the correspondence, the more difficult it is to find the necessary information.
- Search for the contact you need. Approximately the same, although probably in the corporate social network easier, by searching for competencies and the information that the user specified in his profile.
- Secondary access to the content or materials of correspondence. It is easier in the corporate social network, since all correspondence is in one tape, versioning is tracked.
- “Garbage” or dead-end branches of discussion significantly complicate life in an e-mail, and the more participants in the correspondence, the more order of garbage in the correspondence arises. In the corporate social network such difficulties do not arise.
Therefore, in the general case, the graphics of TICs should look like this:
Total. With short communications involving a small number of people, it is easier to use e-mail. If communications are longer and / or involve a wider range of participants, the corporate social network becomes more profitable. By my personal assessment, the turning point comes at the time of 3 people x 3 iterations. And the longer the correspondence lasts, the more profitable it becomes to correspond in the corporate social network. Appreciate your time :).
Bonus That same video , on the basis of which we conducted a mini-study.
Vladimir Ivanitsa
viva@supereon.ru
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/293604/
All Articles