{"id":59,"date":"2022-11-11T16:38:08","date_gmt":"2022-11-11T16:38:08","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/cde22.education.ed.ac.uk\/jhendry\/?p=59"},"modified":"2022-11-11T16:38:08","modified_gmt":"2022-11-11T16:38:08","slug":"communication-load-data-uses","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/cde22.education.ed.ac.uk\/jhendry\/2022\/11\/11\/communication-load-data-uses\/","title":{"rendered":"Communication load & data uses"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In my earlier blog Communication flow \u2013 My Critical Data and Education Blog<\/a> I noted that I wanted to consider communication I received through specific channels at work, within a set time period for my visualisation. The categories recorded were:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

  1. How the information was communicated to me<\/li>
  2. If the communication required me to:<\/li>
  3. undertake a specific action<\/strong><\/li>
  4. absorb and\/or store information<\/strong><\/li>
  5. provide an opinion<\/strong> on a general or corporate policy matter, not directly related to my portfolio of work.<\/li><\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    When considering the data to construct a visualisation I was struck by the fact that the more interesting aspect of the collated information was not what I had anticipated, with the focus of my attention being drawn to the comments noted alongside the categories. The following picture shows my attempt to categorise these comments, whilst retaining a link to the method of communication.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \"\"
    My more colourful version of my initial data capture.<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    What I found was a trend in the types of information that I was interacting with, the communication format meanwhile had become almost irrelevant. The priority level of the activity also became a strong feature of the collated data. I therefore opted to focus on these two key areas for my data visualisation. I used the priority rating to split the data initially into two large categories (low and high priority) and within these two categories I used symbols to indicate the activity (action, information or opinion) whilst ensuring that I linked this with what type of information I was being asked to interact with (planning or scheduling, seeking guidance on an issue within or related to my portfolio or seeking guidance related to general policy or corporate activity).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
    \"\"<\/figure>\n<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

    Data visualisation – communication load<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Overall, I hope the visualisation provides a clear presentation of the types and volume of information presented, and well as the balance between high and low priority. However, on reflection although the visualisation does reflect my experience of that short time it is perhaps lacking in capturing key details, such as how long activities took to deal with, therefore the visualisation perhaps does not present a truly complete picture. For example, some of the low priority actions did not take long to complete so although there are several of them noted the level of \u2018work pressure\u2019 from these activities was low. Whereas many of the activities in the \u2018high priority\u2019 areas were time consuming and often required detailed discussion with colleagues before answers could be provided or opinions given. One of the \u2018opinion\u2019 triangles required research before the meeting took place as well as discussion with relevant colleagues before an approach could be agreed. There isn\u2019t anything in my visualisation that captures this. To be able analysis the communication fully, for example to assess if the level of communication was manageable in the time frame, then additional information would need to be collected. Some examples of areas that could be added include:<\/p>\n\n\n\n