The idea is that the link between communication and action can be measured and reported. We do this for financial and product flows: Why not do it for our communication?

These ideas map to my concept of a new kind of email tool. Part of the idea requires that the sender classify every message as one of the following types: Information, Request, Order or Confirmation.

Rule 1: IROC. Classify all communications as one of the following:

• Information: No reply required.
• Request: Reply options are “Yes” or “No” (System asks “why?”). No response is considered “No”
• Order: Reply options are “Accepted” or “Rejected” (System asks “why?”). System follows up aggressively when it gets no response.
• Confirmation: Reply options are “Yes” and “No” (System asks “Why?)

Rule 2: Passive approval. “Yes” is assumed for all intra-company requests unless you hear “no” within 48 hours. “No” requires a rationale.

Rule 3: Brevity. Use short words. Use short sentences. Use short paragraphs. Be clear.

Rule 4: If it wasn’t said by email, it wasn’t said. “I told you on the phone last week,” “I told you in the hall” etc., are unacceptable.

If you have questions or ideas please post them in the comments section.

Question: What is the purpose of the presentation?

The overt purpose is to educate and inform

The covert purpose is to reinforce the status of the expert and remind the audience that they are not competent to solve their own problems.

I submit that in the information age the traditional presentation model needs to change from

presenter>audience to

host<>guests.

Ideas don’t evolve in a vacuum and they don’t generally flow in one direction.

Our current paradigm is based on a preacher model. An authority figure stands at the front of the room and lectures the class for forty minutes and then takes questions from the audience. Presentation styles vary but more or less they all follow this model.

Nearly every one of XPLANE’s customers already has the expertise they need to solve their problems. They don’t need more experts in the traditional sense — they need people who can help them find, develop and share the best practices and experts within their own organizations. They don’t need more wizards and consultants; they need to improve their communication flows.

We need fewer presentations and more conversations.

We need to develop new approaches that allow the group to take on a greater role in the knowledge-sharing experience. Approaches that turn the traditional presenter into the host of a knowledge-sharing event, rather than an expert spouting wisdom.

Comedian, speaker and performing artist Heather Gold provides a great comparison of presentations vs. conversations in pdf form, which you can find here.

At XPLANE, we are working on some experiments in conversation, in an attempt to flesh out some new mechanisms for unleashing the knowledge and creativity of groups. We have already identified some interesting patterns and structures that have lead to powerful results. If your organization would like to host one, please let me know and we can try to design one together.

Please share your thoughts.