How often do you find that people in your business seem to be talking past each other? Or, to put it a different way, how often does it seem that you keep going around and around with people who can never seem to agree, even though it appears that they have the best intentions, and have the good of the business at heart? Maybe this is because they are actually speaking different languages, even though it appears that they are all speaking "English"!
In
order to get a handle on this, let’s descend into the deep world of philosophy.
Well, not so deep actually! Only so deep
that we find some surprisingly practical help. This help comes from Ludwig Wittgenstein, who said that 'philosophers must leave the frictionless ice and return to the "rough
ground" of ordinary language in use.‘[1] Here
is a quote from Wittgenstein that gives some perspective on the situation as we find in almost all
business contexts, at least beyond the solopreneur, where there is any division of work among specialists: “Let
us imagine a language ...The language is meant to serve for communication
between a builder A and an assistant B. A is building with building-stones; there are blocks,
pillars, slabs and beams. B has to pass the stones, and that in the order in
which A needs them. For this purpose they use a language consisting of the
words 'block', 'pillar', 'slab', 'beam'. A calls them out; --B brings the stone
which he has learnt to bring at such-and-such a call. -- Conceive of this as a
complete primitive language. … I shall also call the whole [of language],
consisting of language and the actions into which it is woven, the
'language-game.' “
The
point here is that this great philosopher recognized that workers create and
communicate by their own specialized languages. And, he has given us some terminology to use in
communicating about these different vocabularies, and styles of communication.
One of my favorite examples of a colorful, business-specific language-game comes from the company we saw that embodied the "business dream". This resort condominium exchange company had an amazing overloaded usage of the word “week”. Far from the normal, everyday usage as 7 days of calendar time, for this company the week was their reason for existence. Anyone who has ever bought into a timeshare plan in a resort location knows that they acquire the rights to occupy a particular facility during a particular time period during every subsequent year.
One of my favorite language examples is from my few years working for a post-divestiture Regional Bell Operating Company. I worked in the strategic IT planning organization, but I had the opportunity to ride in a van pool on a 90-minute commute each way to the headquarters offices. It was during that time spent with employees from all over the business that I learned the many meanings of the term "central office". One might assume that this term referred to the HQ office building where we were all headed. But no, in these conversations, the term "office" was closely associated to the word "exchange". This was the location where telephone switching equipment was housed, and served particular geographic regions. By then, the equipment centers were largely cavernous, nearly empty (because of equipment miniaturization) vaults within massive concrete structures. Central office meant that kind of building. It also meant the equipment that served the region. It also referred to the range of phone numbers served, designate by central office (CO) code. One day I overheard, "I used to have an office in the central office", and I actually understood what this meant! And I wondered, how does if feel to have an office in the Central
Office? My observation was that it
was a point of pride – a kind of badge of honor, to work every day in such a hub of technology. Which helped drive home the point of convergence between business culture, and various business language-games.
It is often the case that people in your business are able to make sense of different language-games, and how they use the same words in different ways, simply because human beings are very good at providing context to make sense of each other's usage. But it becomes a whole different story when computerized information systems are introduced into the mix. Computer technology has raised the bar on the need to clarify ambiguous and overloaded language. Failure to really get clear on how different groups express their business issues can easily turn into health issues of time-wasting communication glitches, and even worse, glitches that are codified into computerized information systems.
It is often the case that people in your business are able to make sense of different language-games, and how they use the same words in different ways, simply because human beings are very good at providing context to make sense of each other's usage. But it becomes a whole different story when computerized information systems are introduced into the mix. Computer technology has raised the bar on the need to clarify ambiguous and overloaded language. Failure to really get clear on how different groups express their business issues can easily turn into health issues of time-wasting communication glitches, and even worse, glitches that are codified into computerized information systems.
In your
business you are likely to encounter a predominance of certain categories of
information than others. Language
models can reveal the importance of the same concept from one domain
to another. Models from two
different companies indicate the importance of contractual agreements in the
insurance business. In fact, many
insurance terms are classified under both the concept of agreement and the
concept of product. This is because
a policy, which is a contract, is actually the basic product of the insurance
industry. Without contracts, there
is no business. This is contrasted
with a model done for a cellular telephone company, where there are very few
terms that refer to contracts.
Contracts are rather casual pieces of paper that are signed upon
commencement of service, and as many as 40% never make it from the retail
distributor back to the appropriate corporate file. Service, billing, and collections proceed unimpeded, so that
contracts are truly not a major issue.
These diverging models provide strong indication of the types of computer support needed by various businesses.
Experience with business language models generally evoke the
positive reaction in business people. There always seem to be significant insights, and great
appreciation for this fresh view of language. Wouldn't you be grateful that information systems professionals
are willing to spend time to appreciate the unique meaning that infuses the
language of your business?
At the same time information systems professionals who have been exposed to this approach are almost unanimous in their positive reaction. The most common reaction is “If only we had followed this approach on my last project! It would have saved untold misunderstanding and rework.” They recognize that detailed understanding of language avoids a number of common problems with information system development. These problems include the cost of reworking inadequate requirements, the loss of credibility when delivered systems do match the needs of the business, the risk that projects will be so focused on the data processing “plumbing” that human communication and information needs will not be served, and the risk that analysts will drift off into a haze of abstractions that are too loosely coupled with the needs of the business. The ultimate risk is that the form and operations of the business will be forced to conform to the resulting information system, instead of the other way around.
At the same time information systems professionals who have been exposed to this approach are almost unanimous in their positive reaction. The most common reaction is “If only we had followed this approach on my last project! It would have saved untold misunderstanding and rework.” They recognize that detailed understanding of language avoids a number of common problems with information system development. These problems include the cost of reworking inadequate requirements, the loss of credibility when delivered systems do match the needs of the business, the risk that projects will be so focused on the data processing “plumbing” that human communication and information needs will not be served, and the risk that analysts will drift off into a haze of abstractions that are too loosely coupled with the needs of the business. The ultimate risk is that the form and operations of the business will be forced to conform to the resulting information system, instead of the other way around.
To get back to the hub list of healthy business factors, click here.
To get back to the discussion of businesses as living systems, click here.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please comment in a collaborative spirit! Thanks so much.