There’s No Such Thing As Communications…

…only Mis-Communications - by Guy W. Wallace, CPT - President, EPPIC Inc. Updated from the 2000 version today…

Bill Deterline’s speech at the 2000 ISPI Conference in Cincinnati reminded me of an old unpublished article of mine from the mid 90′s.  Here it is…

Communications. Is there such a thing? Do we ever really communicate? Or do we simply mis-communicate with greater or lesser amounts of error?

I know I’m playing with the semantics of it all, but as a colleague quotes a friend, “it’s not just semantics, it’s always semantics!”  The American Heritage Dictionary defines communications as: “The exchange of thoughts, messages, or information, as by speech, signals, writing, or behavior.” 

Communication/communicating connotes that the message intended was the message received.   And how often does that happen with zero defects?

If we started with the premise that there is really no such thing as communications, that we never can achieve zero defects in our communications, we will then be on the road to better communications.  Nirvanic communications.

Just as zero defects for widgets are statistically impossible in a world full of variation, so too with communications.  I know it’s impossible, because no matter how hard I’ve really tried, I know I’ve not achieved perfect “nirvanic communications.” I can almost always tell by what happened afterwards.  And it’s frustrating to be so incompetent at this, as I’m sure you well know.

We try, and sometimes we get darn close to really communicating.  Sometimes the variance between what we said, and what was heard, doesn’t hurt us…and since it doesn’t really clobber us, we never even know that our communications didn’t come across exactly as we had intended.  Just as with product and process variation, sometimes the product can withstand certain amounts of process variation with little or no negative consequences.

But that does not mean that we have achieved real communications. It simply means that the product (the interpretation of our intended message) was robust to that amount of process variation (the act of attempting to communicate).  That time.  But unfortunately, it does not happen so robustly each time. We aren’t always so lucky. Which is the danger of believing in communications as a reality.

We are so often lulled into this misperception by the success of most of our recent attempts that we don’t always act in accordance with the sad truth.  We don’t stick around long enough to measure our results and continuously improve the process to reduce the defect rate to a tolerable level—a level that meets the robustness requirements of the situation. And, as with many improvement possibilities, there is not always a sufficient return on our investment to do so.  So we tend to walk on too soon.

Not that that’s always inappropriate.  Hopefully we know it is safe to walk on because we have done a little risk analysis. We know when and where it’s just too risky to walk on prior to checking our own communications work. You know, making sure we did it right (enough) the first time!

But too often we don’t assess the risks and self-check our work. We all too often end up doing communications rework  because the level of variation of our process exceeds the robustness limits and hurts our final product.  And we almost never find out in a timely manner.

Now the reasons for all these mis-communications are quite complex. I won’t pretend to understand nor attempt to convey all of the sources for these variations.  We mis-communicate because we humans are not perfectly the same. We each have our own internal variation. We have different meanings for the same terms. We connote differently. It’s because we have a diversity of experiences, values, beliefs, prejudices, visions, and goals. We have different feelings on different days. Some days we’re sharp, other days somewhat duller. Some days we’re hurried, some days more deliberate. And on and on. Each potential human variation is a potential cause for the variation in our attempts for perfect communications.

Some of these sources are rooted in the sender and some are rooted in the receiver. Most are rooted in both.

But it is the sender who deemed it worthy enough to attempt communications, so the burden for ensuring that the process variation did not exceed the tolerable limits or robustness, and did not negatively impact the product, should be the sender’s.

But smart receivers know that they often get the blame for the miscue. It behooves both sender and receiver to collaborate to get this job done right.

How do we attempt to do this communications thing in a more quality-oriented manner? How can we get closer to doing it righter (within tolerances) the first time? Simply by self-checking our work each time we do it. A technique I learned a long time ago has had such an impact on my own mis-communication style and level of performance that I must share it with you, along with the source.

My friends at Huthwaite, Inc., inVirginia, have a communication model I first was exposed to in the early 1980’s in both their sales training and negotiations training.  I became enamored with it and began using it to self-check my own work almost immediately.

The Huthwaite communications model is a behavioral model for verbal communications.  My simplified version of it includes four groupings of communication behaviors, theirs had between 10 and 13 depending on the application.  (I know it should read mis-communication behaviors, but I’m betting that you’ve got the point by now and so the end product should be robust to my process variation, right?!)

These four behaviors are

• GI:    Giving Information
• SI:     Seeking Information
• S:      Summarizing
• TU:   Testing Understanding

Quite simply, Giving Information (GI) is telling somebody something.  Seeking Information (SI) is asking a question.  Summarizing (S) is restating the message (the given information) usually in an abbreviated manner.  But it is the last behavior that is the powerful self-check technique.

Testing Understanding (TU) is repeating the message through paraphrasing or asking a clarifying question (a unique SI) with the deliberate intent to check out whether the error rate in the attempted communications that has occurred is within robustness toleration.

Usually the sender sends one GI after another GI.  The receiver does some SI and GI (the give and take of communications). Somewhere along the dialogue somebody better do a little TU.

To Test Understanding (TU) you as a receiver ask a specific question to test/self-check your understanding of something specific that the sender sent (a GI); something along the lines of:

• Did you say the contract is worth $4 million?
• So you think we can land that account?
• So you think I don’t listen and really hear you?
• Are you beginning to understand this technique yet?

Either the sender or the receiver can and should do the TU. If it’s critical from a risk standpoint, you should do a TU followed up by an S just to be darn sure that the mis-communication is minimal, within tolerances.

The Huthwaite model is simple, but powerful. And if it lessens mis-communications, it is most definitely an improvement tool/technique. And then there is the enhancement to this technique, which is to forecast your intent at the front of your message.  An example:

• Let me test my understanding here; did you say there is an enhancement to the technique?

You bet! Announcing the receiver’s intention allows the sender to mentally prepare for the incoming volley. It’s not just more SI, it’s a TU!

This technique and its enhancement will help you lower your mis-communications significantly.. First you must be aware that mis-communication is the rule, not the rarity.  And second, you must self-check your own communications work products.

So now do you understand that communications is as impossible as zero defects and that you can practice certain techniques to reduce variation?

Good.

Just testing.

# # #

And you go up the Learning Curve to go Up the Performance Curve – if the path is based on authentic performance requirements.

The Learning Path or Development Path is always best if it reflects authentic job performance. In my approach they do for PUSH target Audiences – but not for PULL. PULL Target Audiences get a generic path made up of content developed specifically for PUSH Target Audiences. It will have less authenticity and transfer less well for the PULL Target Audiences. But it will have greater authenticity and excellent transfer for PUSH Target Audiences.

I have been doing these Curriculum Architecture efforts since 1982 – and first published on this methodology – Curriculum Architecture – in September 1984 in Training Magazine. I’ve been training and certifying staff and clients’ clients since 1983 on the analysis and design methods and processes. And FYI – “architecture” of content is at more than the Path level – which is the equivalent of an architectural design of a room versus the whole building – moving up away from granular detail – and the fine detail of the cove molding and nails – moving down into greater detail – architecturally speaking.

This first example Path has a lock-step approach – situationally appropriate.

This second example Path has some flexibility – situationally appropriate to the Performance Context and how this performance was conducted with variation – planned variation – in the many countries where the Performers performed.

This next Path example was a total open menu – organized into Basics, Intermediate and Advanced knowledge and skills modules. The 1000 Series was highly modularized to reflect the product, product cycle and role variations of each Performer/learner’s situation.

T&D/Learning Paths need to be:

As Flexible As Feasible and As Rigid As Required

The Path is a product of a CAD effort – where the performance-based needs are clarified – and all available content is screened for its reuse potential “as is” or “after modification”  and then all gaps partial and total a priced and prioritized. A CAD effort does not produce any new content – it determines the performance-based needs – assesses reuse of existing content – and prioritizes gaps for development/acquisition in an ADDIE-like approach that for me is MCD – Modular Curriculum Development/Acquisition…

I’ve led and conducted 74 of these CAD projects myself. I’ve trained hundreds and hundreds of clients’ ISD staff in dozens of private, in-house, non-public sessions.

This front end engineering of the Learning Path – the T&D Path – leads to development – as rapid a development effort as needed – minimizing and eliminating overlaps and gaps – unless By Design.

Rapid Development – Post-CAD

I use this next,MCD graphic often – as it helps me when clients want my project planning, analysis and design skills – but wish their staff to do the development work. I then own the top row and they own the bottom row – or I do both for them – using my network of trusted professionals.

In the first phase of MCD – the ADDIE-like level of PACT…

• Interviews are conducted
• A Project Plan drafted
• A Project Steering Team (PST) Gate Review Meeting is conducted to get the Project aligned to the needs and constraints of the Customers and other Stakeholders – and to “schedule” and “people” the planned effort.

In Phase 2 of MCD we always do 4 types of analysis…

1. Target Audience
2. Performance
3. Enabling Knowledge/Skills
4. Existing T&D Assessments

After that a Design is created – by processing the analysis data – which is slightly reconfigured for this purpose. The Design Team Meeting produces:

• Event Maps
• Lesson Maps
• Instructional Activity Specs

Then I and my team, or I and the client, or the client begins Development using the design maps and specifications from the prior phase. This is kicked-off Formally with the entire Development Team of Instructional Designer-types and Master Performers and other Subject Matter Experts.

What is produced here is everything needed to conduct the Pilot-Test next.

Then I and my team, or I and the client, or the client begins the Pilot-Testing of the Content produced – with assessments as appropriate.

I like to think of this as a “full destructive test.”

Why? To avoid issues later when it’s too late to avoid the issue and expensive and time consuming to fix it.

Break it if it can be broken – find out now rather than later.

Afterwards updates are made and the content stored where it is needed for deployment, access, and archiving.

This is all very nice you might say. But this is the internet age! Can it go faster – combine phases, etc.?

Yep.

And what do you do with this when your need and effort is a lot less – and you simply need to

Cook, Crank and Wail!?!

If it is a smaller scale the efforts in analysis, design and development are simply done quicker. Same steps, accomplished faster – and better.

Cranking out Content – good Content – that has an impact – still requires analysis and good design. They can all be done more rapidly – and done well.

Rapid and Well – don’t always go together.

For ideas and resources for staff development in Analysis and Design – please contact me.

For my recent (mid-2011) books on these methods and processes – please go here.

Measured Results

From one of my 35+ LinkedIn Recommendations:

“Guy is a true instructional design and performance improvement professional, author and practitioner. While I was working at Bank of America we commissioned Guy and his CADDI team to redesign the three retail bank learning and development programs into one high performing curriculum design. As a result of this work we were able to reduce turnover at the frontline teller positions by an average of 30%.

Guy’s ethics and proven approach made the effort very cost effective and fast to implement.

I would recommend Guy for his knowledge of human performance technology, for his client service focus and for his business ethics.

Randy Kohout   VP, CUNA Mutual Group” March 22, 2009

Top qualities: Great Results, Expert, Good Value

1^st Randy Kohout  hired Guy Wallace as a Business Consultant in 1997, and hired Guy Wallace more than once

For a PDF of this post – download this: You Go Down The Learning Path

# # #

# # #

Too much content is about Topics.

Topics without Task application guidance and practice.

Learners – in an Enterprise Learning Context – need to learn how to do Tasks, not Topics, when all is said and done. Those with enough prior knowledge can learn informally, and be self-guided. The opposite is true for most new-to-the-job employees. They most often need the most hand-holding. That hand holding either happens well – or not – due to many variables. Management is the number one variable – and clarifying the expectations and providing the guidance – to whatever level is needed – so that the new-employee can begin to contribute. Leaving it a sink-or-swim situation is not a valid learning nor performance approach.  Nor is it a good approach to management stewardship.

Making wise investments – in every decision that expends capital and labor – is simply good stewardship.

Following methods and practices that produce content – but not impact – is not good stewardship.

Make a performance impact by focusing on Performance Competence.

Produce significant ROI when you properly engage your customers and stakeholders in your predictable Project Processes.

The first two of eight sets-of the PACT Video Shorts Series are now available – the first 15 of 56 planned Video Shorts on PACT and EPPI…

More Video Shorts to follow over time…41 in fact…

…and hopefully not over too much time.

These video podcasts are available to help you become a PACT Practitioner – as well as these available audio podcasts – plus a set of readings from books and articles – and some Presentations that are related – and are all part of The School of PACT.

# # #

The first 15 Videos – in the first 2 of 8 sets of Video Shorts – which will include over 55 Videos in total when completed – has been made available here at Guy W. Wallace’s and EPPIC’s Blog and Web Site:

www.eppic.biz

Please go here for the indexes to the 8-sets of Videos – or to these links for the index to any one of those 8 sets:

The PACT Video Shorts Series Index and Links

A- PACT Overviews - available now

B- PACT Analysis - available now

C- CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design - available soon

D- MCD – Modular Curriculum Development - available soon

E- IAD – Instructional Activity Development - available soon

F- Project Planning & Management - available soon

G- Group Process Facilitation Tips - available soon

H- EPPI – Performance Improvement - available soon

The PACT Processes for Training & Development, Learning, and Knowledge Management – is a set of flexible, performance-based ISD – Instructional Design Proven Processes and Valid Methods for Learning Design and Development for one-time, multiple or ongoing deployment.

Proven in hundreds of projects since 1982 as conducted by Guy W. Wallace and the consulting firm’s staff that he developed and the staffs his clients who he trained and helped adapt those Processes and Methods that couldn’t be adopted. EPPI – Enterprise Process Performance Improvement is a set of Processes and Methods for an Enterprise Quality Assurance and Improvement effort.

The School of PACT is DIY development approach using articles, chapters and books plus video podcasts and audio podcasts – for analysts, designers, lead developers – and project planners and managers.

Guy W. Wallace and EPPIC conducts projects and develops client processes and staff in the application of PACT and EPPI Processes and Methods, and in the adaptation of Internal Practices and Tools.

# # #

From Training To Performance Improvement Consulting – is now available as a Kindle eBook for $25.00.

Available as a Kindle – here *** and also as a Paperback – here.

6th in a 6-Pack Series of Books for a Performance-based Training and Development, Learning, and Knowledge Management organization.

# # #

Own the Analysis Process – Not the Analysis Content

Do it well and quickly. Very quickly. And with ultimate buy-in.

Buy-in – with the individual contributors, and their managers, and their cross-functional peers who together are the players in the interwoven set of processes that is a modern enterprise today. The best way to buy-in – is to give them ownership of the outputs. After selling them on the whos, whats, whys, wheres, whens and hows of your process – in other words: sell your process and the framework of data – that they, the will own when complete. If you need to distinguish Outputs from Tasks that’s your call. But what goes in those “fields” should be, can be a consensus outputs from the experts, exemplars, masters, or in my terminology – to leave no-doubt that this isn’t an expert in just subject matter – but is indeed an expert in the Performance of Tasks to Produce Outputs to Stakeholder Requirements – that I call: master performers.

When they own the outputs – and those meet their needs as inputs – then we win. If we control the process to insure output validity with the most effectiveness and done with the most efficiency - then we all win – all Stakeholders, Customers included. But not exclusively.

That’s what the flexible PACT and EPPI methods and processes accomplish – with a little help from your customers and stakeholders. It is helpful to all for your analysis efforts to be lean and both effective and efficient. Effectiveness is measured after the fact at L4 and L3 – and predictably prior  at L2 and L1.

I have formal – but quick – analysis efforts built into to every project plan – as a starting point. For either adoption or – adaptation.

In a CAD – Curriculum Architecture effort it looks at

• target audience data
• performance data
• enabling knowledge/skills data
• existing training assessment data

And it does the same in an MCD – Modular Curriculum Development effort.  Only in a smaller scope – not the whole job – for the last 3 of the 4 data-sets.

And that MCD data – builds on any CAD data available – or it exists on its own – as MCD can be preceded by a CAD effort – or not.

But ISD – Instructional Systems Design – only addresses the knowledge and skill variables  that are required from the human assets needed to enable Process Performance.

There are other variables to Performance than just knowledge and skills. So when it is needed – the analysis effort segues/ broadens to become an EPPI effort – an Enterprise Process Performance Improvement analysis effort – leading to many potential intervention types.

Analysis shows up in both the Stage I and Stage II EPPI efforts.

And of course builds on the data the came out of prior efforts – such as EPPI Stage I building on that downstream in EPPI Stage II.

The key thing about Processes – is that they deal with real People, in a real Performance Context – and have great insight into what will really work, and what will meet their real performance needs.

When appropriately involved – and respectful of their time and efforts – Master Performers and other Subject Matter Experts should own the Content specifics. You make sure it is both valid – and – useful downstream.

I share my experience for a fee and for free.

For free is available here…

The School of PACT Book and eBook Series

See more about these 6 books please go: here.

Then there is the Video Shorts Series.

The School of PACT Video Shorts Series

Over 55 Video Shorts are in the overall design – with 15 initially available.

See more information and to begin access for viewing please go: here.

Performance Competence – in the PACT and EPPI Processes and Methodologies – is all about meeting the stakeholders – all of the stakeholders’ – balanced requirements.  Balancing involves determining which requirements supersede others – and which cancel out which of the others – when in conflict.

Information about Formal Workshops and Less formal Coaching Sessions – on any and all aspects of The PACT Process and EPPI Methods – are available here. And all may be adapted to your specific situation and needs!

# # #

From The Free Dictionary:

Overgeneralize : draw too general a conclusion.

It may not easily fit the 140 character limit – but if you can help the readers by setting the Context – it might help them.

Many folks in the Learning field/biz create posts and make statements – me too – without letting the readers/listeners know of which CONTEXT they are speaking.

I’ve written/posted about this before regarding Learning Contexts – which I see as 3 distinct CONTEXTS – your views may differ.

1. Personal Learning Context

2. Educational Learning Context

3. Enterprise Learning Context 

Here is a prior post – which you may not need to get the point – about differing Contexts – and how some things may be true – or more true – in one but not another.

And the above is but one of many existing Contexts – ways to frame something to deal with it more appropriately. An accountant would frame it differently than a Process Engineer. Appropriately.

And the need to add a clarify context to help get me/you get our points across. Even though there is more to it than that.

I don’t always do this myself as I said.

But I would hope to get better.

# # #

You want Transfer? Then get Real. Real Authentic! 

Too many Learning/Training Conferences don’t have sessions on Analysis. I know – I scan the titles and descriptions of all the marketing literature/postings. Too many publications don’t address Analysis either. It seems to be becoming a lost art and skill. I’ve been tracking this for over a decade. Analysis must not be cool anymore. I think too many in the past screwed it up for those who followed – but that’s another story/post.

Analysis is always the 2nd Phase in any of my Instructional and Performance Improvement methodology-sets/processes. It is done in a matter of days versus weeks or months by using collaborative group process methods with a group of Master Performers and other Subject Matter Experts as required. Here it sits in the 2nd Phase of the 4-Phases of a typical CAD – Curriculum Architecture Design effort…

The Analysis data anchors all of my Instructional designs – from the terminal learning objectives of the real-world performance objectives – to the design focused on authentic application exercises for practice with reinforcing or corrective feedback – and providing the informations and demonstrations needed for successful applications in the Learning and then on the job.

In an Enterprise Learning Context – it’s all about the authenticity of the applications practice with feedback. And that would require conducting analysis of the real performance first – before conducting other appropriate actions – long before any Instructional Design leads to development and deployment.

The Analysis efforts and data insures that the learning objectives, and the content, and the definitions, and the demonstrations, and the application exercises – even if a Jeopardy Game –  are authentic –  have a chance at transfer.

You want transfer? Try “getting real” first. Real Authentic About Performance on the Job.

Don’t sit around back at the shop and make up the learning objectives. Get input for the people already doing the job at a level of mastery – as the benchmarks. And – don’t stop with what people need to know. Focus on what people need to do. In an Enterprise Learning Context.

Analysis starts off with the Target Audiences – the primary, secondary and tertiary. Segmenting them as to who to focus on – who to less focus on – and who to ignore – is critical. I know – I have been burned and I have learned.

From there one can focus on the right Performance. And that starts off – not with lists of Tasks – gag me – but with an understanding of the major segments of the job – something that I call AoPs – Areas of Performance. You call it whatever you need to in your context.

Here is an example from the mid-1980s for a Sales Rep. Not all sales jobs are represented by this model – my client’s at the time were however. This was created with a group of their Master Performers – so the end product carried some weight with everyone else. Something I also learned – by being burned – way back in the day.

The goal of the AoP step is to segment the entirety of the Performance – and eliminate any gaps and overlaps – and create a framework for the detailed analysis. That framework allows for cleaner and more logical way to capture and organize data. Our approach has unique and shared data, and learning content, organized first by performers/learners and their performance Tasks – and then by Topic.

So it all begins and ends with Process Performance. Objectives and Measurement by Area of Performance.

Here is another example – adapted from real work I did in the 1980s. This was for a “convenience store manager (and assistant manager) training effort.

Once the AoPs are established and “bought into” by the Analysis Team – and not the Analyst (how would they know?) the detailed analysis can begin. But not before.

When I deliver workshops and coaching sessions for clients – which I have been doing since the mid-1980s – I have the Learners/Performers practice initially on their past Summer Jobs – from their youth – when the job they had might have been pretty simple. It’s a Kid Job – the first time you got paid for doing something other than around the house for the parental units.

Then I have them conduct analysis on someone else’s Summer Job. And after that we get into more a complex Simulation Exercise – depending on the length of the session.

Here is an example from one of my own Summer Jobs – which was actually a year-round job – 7/365 – or 366 – if you will. Click on it – or any of these graphics – to enlarge.

And here are some details in the form of a Performance Model chart on one of those AoPs…

Can you see in the example above what the terminal performance objectives might be? Can you construct your 3-part behavioral learning objectives from them? Of course what’s missing are the enabling Knowledge/Skills from that level of analysis. Those would then become the enabling objectives – or whatever you call that next tier. Those would be articulated in Performance terms too – not using Bloom’s Taxonomy and those magic words.

I was trained in this – in 1979 – to write learning objectives in Performance Terms – and to always be focused on terminal Performance – for development for success in Level 2 and 3. You see – in this approach you know what those performance needs and context are exactly – as you conduct the analysis and later the design effort – all tied back to Performance on the job.

Which requires analysis of the same.

The trick might be later in determining the measurement mechanisms required – if they are not already in place – and typically they are not.  The measurement of L4 impact is probably always inexact – as the Performance analysis is more likely to identify more than one key contributing factor for the Results. I was taught in 1979 that L4 Results – was the Return On Investment – ROI. Hoe else would a business person measure it?

That Summer Job/Kid Job that I have others use for their initial development – for was delivering papers for The South Bend Tribune in LaPorte Indiana during 6th and 7th grade – 7 days a week – 365 days a year – to 72 customers.

I had to ride my bike across town to the office/warehouse to first collect and then roll and bag my papers, then ride across town to The Route, and the deliver 72 papers – afternoon by 5 pm on weekdays and Saturdays but on Sunday mornings by 7 am – by tossing – or carefully placing for those few who had requested it – that predictably thin to thick stack of newsprint – from that big town to the east.

Here I am below – tool in hand – doing some shade tree mechanics on my most important working tool – The Enabler – the bike – and obviously getting ready for a ball game afterwards. Work before play.

I did deliver papers with that uniform on if my schedule was tight in weekend days those two summers. It also increased the tips on collection day – Fridays – as I recall. I guess I learned early to dress for success.

My analysis methods are covered in my new book: Analysis of Performance Competence Requirements – The book covers both Instructional Analysis as well as Analysis for Performance Improvement (beyond Instruction) needed if one wishes to accomplish both…

The book is available as both a paperback and as a Kindle – see more about that book – and the others in my new (in 2011) 6-Pack - here.

# # #

Caveat Emptor – Always.

This is especially an issue around Social Media and self-proclaimed experts. But it is true in many other professional fields such as Learning, Quality, etc.

I see many claims of expertise – and even short lists of accomplishments – but there it stops. No depth. No details. No indication of who it was done for – and whom might attest to such claims.

One of the ways to avoid this – if you actually have great experience and expertise – and many people do – is to make it easy for others – share the projects and some details and who the clients were (if they will allow that – some won’t!)  - and – if you don’t – don’t make such claims because you were involved in some kind of effort once (or twice) and/or were peripherally involved.

Ask those involved to attest publicly on LinkedIn (or some such easily available site) to your role and contribution.

I am proud of my depth of experience and my client engagement successes – and the 38 LinkedIn Recommendations I have here.

I did not trade tit-for-tat with these people – mostly clients and former employees – and for the few “trades” I might seem to have – those mostly came as a result of me spontaneously creating Recommendation for someone – who then in turn Recommended me. But not always.

Pattern Recognition

I get immediately suspicious – as The Analyst in me sees the pattern – of partnering and triangulation and more – when two or three or more people support each other with trades of Recommendations, and Post referrals, and ReTweets, etc. It’s always the same folks involved.  I often think there is a schedule – but I don’t take the time and effort to discern one – hoping that I am wrong.

You’ve probably noticed that too at times.

Hmm.

It’s one thing to be supportive. It’s good to be supportive.

But it’s another to create the true or false impression that it’s simply a marketing ploy – a trade-off – and not genuine.

If the number of posts and reposts and reTweets is limited to a very small number of cohorts – well – that says it all.

But – is that what they meant to say?

My clients – and numbers of projects – since 1982…

Clients   (#of Projects)

• Abbott Laboratories (3)
• ALCOA (2)
• ALCOA Labs (2)
• Alyeska Pipeline Services Company (2)
• American Management Systems (1)
• Ameritech (1)
• Amoco Corporation (13)
• Arthur Andersen (1)
• ARCO of Alaska (3)
• AT&T (4)
• AT&T Communications (1)
• AT&T Microelectronics (1)
• AT&T Network Systems (24)
• Bandag (7)
• Bank of America (2)
• Baxter (1)
• Bellcore Tech (1)
• British Petroleum-America (1)
• Burroughs (1)
• Channel Gas Industries/Tenneco (1)
• Commerce Clearing House (1)

• Data General (1)
• Detroit Ball Bearing (1)
• Digital Equipment Corporation (2)
• Discover Card (1)
• Dow Chemical (3)
• EDS (1)
• Eli Lilly (7)
• Exxon Exploration (2)
• Fireman’s Fund Insurance (1)
• Ford Design Institute (1)
• Ford Motor Company (1)

• General Dynamics (10)
• General Motors (25)
• GTE (1)
• H&R Block (1)
• Hewlett Packard (5)
• Illinois Bell (3)
• Imperial Bondware (1)
• Imperial Oil (1)

• Johnson Controls (1)
• Kodak (1)
• Lockheed (1)

• MCC Powers (16)
• Motorola (1)
• Multigraphics (1)
• NASA (1)
• NASCO (1)
• NAVAIR (1)
• NAVSEA (2)
• NCR (2)
• Norfolk Naval Shipyard (4)
• Northern Telecom (1)
• Northern Trust Bank (1)
• NOVA (2)
• Novacor (1)
• NSA (1)
• Occidental Petroleum Labs (1)

• Pacific Gas & Electric (1)
• Quaker (1)

• Siemens Building Technologies (1)
• Spartan Stores (1)
• Sphinx Pharmaceuticals (1)
• Square D Company (2)
• SunTrust Banks (2)

• Valuemetrics (1)
• Verizon (3)
• Verizon Information Services (1)
• Wells Fargo Advisors (1)
• Westinghouse Defense Electronics (1)

# # #