DEVELOPING ORGANIZATIONS’ INTERNAL COMMUNICATION
BY COMMUNICATION AUDITS
Dr. Mirja Vaananen*, University of Oulu, Finland
mirja.vaananen@oulu.fi, *corresponding author
ABSTRACT
Organizational communication is critical for any organization to function well. By the means
of communication, knowledge is transferred and shared in organizations. In addition,
communication is an enabler for organizational learning. It is important to continuously
invest in developing organizational communication. Communication audits provide means to
gain information of the current state of and to enhance organizational communication. This
paper discusses what kind of methods should be used for a communication audit to enhance
organizational communication. Prior literature presents several processes and methods for
communication audits. Both quantitative and qualitative methods have been used. The
purpose of this paper is to understand what kind of process and methods are suitable for ICT
circumstances.
The paper starts by literature review concerning communication audits. Advantages and
disadvantages of different methods are argued. Then, the paper presents a communication
audit method used by the author. This method was used in five product development project
cases to understand the current state of organizational communication and to enhance
communication in each case. Based on the findings of this paper, organizations can choose
methods suitable for their purposes to conduct a communication audit and to enhance
organizational communication.
Keywords: Communication, communication audit, internal communication, communication
audit methods
INTRODUCTION
Organizational communication has been interest of researchers already decades. It has been
noticed by both academics and practitioners that communication is critical for any
organizational to function well. Communication provides means for knowledge creation,
transfer and share, and thus enhancing organizational learning.
There has been enthusiastic interested towards assessing the current state of communication
and based on assessment, generating development actions communication to better
functioning. Organizational communication audits are means to provide management
information concerning organizational communication and its effectiveness. Communication
audits are used for exploring, examining, monitoring, and evaluating communication. Audits
are used to reveal gaps in the communication process and to provide suggestions for
improvements (Henderson, 2005).
Communication audit provides new information of the organization. Typically audits
consider communication as a process related to other organizational processes (Downs &
Adrian, 2004). For example, an audit may reveal weaknesses in human resource management
related issues like feedback from management on one’s contributions in one’s job. As a
consequence of an audit, enhancements may be gained, in addition to communication
process, in many organizational processes. The results of organizational communication
assessment – how the personnel view the organization, management and strategic goals – can
also be used to benefit strategic planning of the organization (Hargie & Tourish, 2009).
In addition to that communication assessments benefit communication practices, an audit
itself can be considered as a communication method (Downs & Adrian, 2004): to conduct a
communication audit gives an impression that management is interested in perceptions of the
personnel. For those participating in the auditing process, it also provides an opportunity of
influencing one’s own work. The participants involved in the planning and follow-up phases
of the auditing process are provided with a comprehensive approach to the whole
communication process.
Essentially, communication audits emphasize the viewpoint of personnel involved in the
communication processes to be audited. An audit gives management verified information on
how personnel perceive communication and related processes. Instead of relying on rumors
or grapevine a communication audit substantiates and checks the accuracy of personnel
perceptions. It gives feedback to the management on how the communication process is
perceived to be working (Zwijze-Koning & de Jong, 2007).
Multiple methods have been used in communication audits. Previous literature has shown the
advantages of both quantitative (Clampitt, 2000) and qualitative (Dickson, 2000; Millar &
Gallagher, 2000; Dickson, 2009) methods. The most often used include interviews, surveys,
focus groups, observations, network analyses, content analyses, communication diaries, and
critical incident analyses. Typically, different methods are used to complement each other
(Hargie & Tourish, 2009).
Zwije-Koning and de Jong (2005) argue that, among the organizational communication audit
literature, there is a lack of discussion of what kind of information can be sought through
different methods used in communication audits. They state that triangulation is important
but not sufficient requirement when selecting methods used in an audit. In addition, although
it may be that the research process and selected methods need to be case specific, the
suitability of each method for collecting the needed data (regarding the purpose of the
research) has to be considered.
Only rarely the studies argue what methods are suitable under which circumstances, and what
should be considered when selecting the methods to be used. Methods affect the type of data
gained, which further affects what kind of conclusions can be made and what kind of results
can be expected from the audit process. In addition, there may be organization-specific
constrains related to data gathering methods: for example, do the personnel have their own
computers in use (then e.g. internet-based questionnaire is suitable option) or not (then e.g.
surveys need to be made by paper form).
The aim of this paper is to discuss what kind of research process is suitable to study (intraproject) communication effectiveness in high technology product development organizations?
In the following chapter examples of the typical methods used are placed and their
advantages and disadvantages are discussed. Then, the paper presents a communication audit
process and discusses the strengths and limitations related to the proposed process.
METHODS TO STUDY ORGANIZATIONAL COMMUNICATION
EFFECTIVENESS
Communication audit process may involve different kind of methods. It is typical that the
audit process includes a survey. By surveys auditors are able to collect quantitative data of
the communication in the organization.
Surveys are very popular methods used in communication audits. The most popular surveys
are Communiaction Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ by Downs & Hazen, 1977), ICA Audit
Survey (Goldhaber & Krivonos 1977, Goldhaber 2002), and LTT audit questionnaire (Wiio
& Helsila 1974, Wiio 1977). These may also be accommodated into case-specific
circumstances. These surveys have slightly interest towards communication process and the
themes covered are slightly different (Table 1).
Table 1: Themes covered in communication audit surveys.
Survey
Themes
covered
CSQ
ICA Audit Survey
LTT
Communication
climate
Amount of information
received versus amount of
desired (various topics)
Amount
of information sent versus
amount of desired (various
topics)
Amount of information
received
versus amount of desired
(various sources)
Amount of information
received versus amount of
desired (various channels)
Amount of follow-up versus
amount of desired
Timeliness of information
Overall communication satisfaction
Relationships with
supervisors
Organizational
integration
Media quality
Horizontal (informal)
communication
Organizational
perspective
Relationships with
subordinates
Personal feedback
Organizational relationships
Satisfaction with
organizational
outcomes
Amount of information received
from different sources (current
state vs. ideal)
Amount of information received
about certain job items (current
state vs.
ideal)
Areas of communication that need
improvements
Job satisfaction
Availability of computer
information systems
Availability of computer
information systems
Respondent’s general
communication behavior
Organization-specific
communication
Information-seeking patterns
Surveys presented in Table 1 have been validated meaning that the tool measures the things it
is supposed to measure. However, from the table it shows that the contents of the surveys
differ as well as the viewpoint they take to what is considered to be important. Based on the
themes covered by the surveys as presented in the table, it can be concluded that these most
popular surveys all have slightly different viewpoint to communication process and to what is
considered important. CSQ includes communication climate and related aspects like
organizational integration, informal horizontal communication. In addition, there is a strong
emphasis on superior-subordinate communication. On the other hand, ICA audit survey
highlights receiving and sending information. LTT survey has special attention into
information seeking and computer information systems. The themes covered by the survey
are, of course, related to each others. However, it can be concluded that in a communication
audit, if a survey is used, its contents can be planned case-specifically depending on the
current interests.
Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) is a quantitative tool providing statistical
data about employees’ communication satisfaction (Zwije-Koning and de Jong, 2007). CSQ
is a method to analyze respondents’ satisfaction with ten dimensions of communication
system (Zwije-Koning and de Jong, 2007). CSQ has been used e.g. in a research by ZwijeKoning and de Jong (2009) where each item was measured on a scale from 1 to 7, and mean
scores for each item and confidence intervals for each dimension were calculated.
There are also other surveys used to audit organizational communication. For the basis of the
research process developed in this paper and presented in following chapters, two other
surveys were analyzed. These include a survey by Müller (2003) and COMPASS survey by
Construction Industry Institute (1996) (compare the context from Appendix 1). The survey by
Müller concentrates on information management viewpoints. The COMPASS has a wider
outlook. The strengths of the COMPASS include that it is in electronic form: the respondents
can fill in an electronic form to answer the questionnaire.
Hargie & Dickson (2007) studied organizational information flows in four organizations
using Episodic Communication Channels in Organization (ECCO) questionnaire. ECCO
questionnaire was developed to measure personnel’s knowledge of in-house policies
regarding to informal and formal grievance policies. The questionnaire was sent altogether to
832 disproportionatedly selected persons.
The advantages of using the ECCO questionnaire include providing exact information of
employee knowledge level. ECCO questionnaire can also be implemented in variety of
contexts and purposes. Shortcomings of using ECCO include that it is time consuming. In
addition, there is a risk that the questionnaire is seen as a test of employees rather than a
feedback channel. Additionally, the tool provides only quantitative data and lacks of
respondents’ explanations or interpretations of the causes. (Hargie & Dickson, 2007). The
critics towards ECCO questionnaire include also that it does not made any difference of the
role of the respondents: people working in different roles or organizational units may
perceive information flows differently.
Besides survey, also other methods to collect and analyze data can be used in communication
audits. Critical Incident Technique (CIT) and Network analysis are among the most popular
ones. CIT is a qualitative tool studying any communicative incident towards that the
employees have positive or negative feelings (Zwije-Koning and de Jong, 2007). Critical
incident technique investigates personnel communication experience (Hunt et al. 2000).
Critical incident technique (CIT) has been used e.g. by Hunt et al. (2000) in a study of
communication experiences by education managers. In this study interviewees were asked to
(regarding communication) document three critical incidents that occurred during their
working. The interviewees were also asked to document the main strengths and weaknesses
of communication within the organization. Based on the gathered data, a content analysis was
made to identify respondents perceptions of communication processes, main patterns of
communication incidents and current communication climate in the workplace.
Network analysis can be used to reveal communication structure within the organization. The
data can be used to detect information blockages and to generate new communication
structures. (Zwije-Koning and de Jong, 2009)
More than one method in the audit process
It is typical that the audit process includes more than one method to collect and analyze data.
For example, CSQ has been used in different kind of audit processes to supplement data
gathered by e.g. interviews, critical incident technique, and network analysis.
Zwije-Koning and de Jong (2007) present a study where they analyze the reliability and
validity of Communication Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ) by comparing it to Critical
Incident Technique (CIT). Special attention was paid to that does the CSQ covered the
themes found to be important based on the CIT analysis. In addition, they analyzed whether
both of these tools can be used by the researchers to explain employees overall
communication satisfaction and do these two different types of tools point to same directions
of communication satisfaction or dissatisfaction.
Zwije-Koning and de Jong (2007) found out that the CSQ is a suitable tool for generating an
overall view of how the employees perceive organizational communication. However, they
argue that CSQ is not so suitable for identifying specific challenges related to communication
or, for generating proposals of how to develop communication.
In another study, Zwije-Koning and de Jong (2009) in their communication audit among
three large high schools from Netherlands utilized network analysis, the critical incident
technique, and the CSQ. All data was gathered in interviews from 45 minutes to two hours.
For the network analysis they asked personnel to identify with whom they interacted the
most, about which topics (the topics were categorized into coordination, strategic issues, and
personal ones), and how often. After that, a social network analysis program UCINET
(Borgatti et al 2002), was used to calculate network analyses.
In their research, Zwije-Koning and de Jong (2009) utilized different types of methods for
organizational communication audit. Each method provided different type information and
thus supported making analysis and conclusions of the shortcomings of communication
within the studied organizations. For example, in interviewees stated that decisions were
made without their involvement which was supported by that 21% critical incidents pointed
at decision making and that network analyses showed strongly centralized decision making
networks.
In her research, Vos (2009) introduces a different type of an instrument to study
communication quality and added value in municipalities. The instrument is based on
balanced scorecard by Kaplan and Norton and quality control procedures that the European
Foundation of Quality Management (EFQM) utilizes. The used instrument covers interviews
of communication professionals and general managers. The interviewees were asked to name
indicators of communication quality and examples of good or bad communication regarding
corporate communication, policy communication and, organization-related communication.
In addition, the auditors searched for facts and figures to support the findings made from
interviews. The process ended with a seminar with relevant stakeholders to discuss the
outcomes of the research process.
Vos (2009) reports that the validity of the instrument could be improved by using external
auditors and by providing more facts and figures to support the findings from the interviews.
She also reports that the seminars promoted creating a common understanding and
improvement plans. Vos (2009) argues that this kind of research enhances dialogue between
communication professionals and top managers, and that after the research the top managers
better understood the effects of communication.
SPECIFIC NEEDS FOR THE METHOD IN ICT CIRCUMSTANCES
In this chapter a discussion is presented concerning what to consider when generating a
communication audit for ICT product development.
In ICT companies, the speed of product development is crucial. Thus these companies invest
in efficiency and effectiveness of product development operations. For example, there are
continuous investments in increased speed of new product introductions (Mallick &
Schroeder, 2005) after the product development is essentially the life-blood of an ICT
company (Campbell & Holmes, 2004).
Organizing product development in ICT companies has some special features that shape
communication systems of these organizations. For example, ICT product development
projects typically involve a network of companies and subcontractors (van Echtelt et al.
2008). In such projects, engineering personnel need to interact both with the employees by
his/her own company and with the employees of the other companies involved in the
cooperation. Thus, personnel need to be aware of agreed practices related to communication
over organizational boundaries. It is not only the managers but also the engineering personnel
who have the responsibility to put efforts of effective inter-organizational communication.
ICT product development is complex from the viewpoint of communication. The personnel
in product development projects are typically geographically distributed i.e. multi-site
(Paasivaara 2005). Even though the project may not be multi-site, there are often many
national cultures involved (multi-cultural, Harvey & Griffith, 2007). Additionally, there are
several on-going projects in the product development, and the personnel maybe involved in
several projects at the same time (Killen et al., 2007). In ICT projects the product itself is
complex (complex product structure, Birk & Heller 2007) and may involve professionals
with different backgrounds: e.g. software designers, electronics designers, mechanics
designers, system designers (multi-technical projects) (Edmonson & Nembhard, 2009). These
aspects should be considered when planning a communication audit.
Communication in ICT product development projects is enhanced typically with the newest
communication technologies. Computer-aided communication is present in everyday
interaction in these projects. In the case that a communication audit studies the current
situation of the communication system in the organization, the audit should also recognize the
position of all these technologies used in the organization. The auditor may also use this as an
advantage: if the personnel are familiar to use different communication media, why not to use
those as data collection tools in the audit.
An important constrain for conducting a communication audit in ICT product development is
that time is critical in ICT business: the auditor is expected to use as little time of the persons
involved as possible for conducting the audit. When possible, the auditor should acknowledge
this when planning the auditing process.
DESCRIPTION OF THE DEVELOPED PROCESS
The process developed to study (intra-project) communication effectiveness in high
technology product development organizations is presented in this chapter. The process was
developed based on the literature review of communication audits.
As recommended by the earlier literature, multiple data collection methods were decided to
be used. The methods (Figure 1) were selected in order to them to provide both quantitative
and qualitative data of the phenomenon under study. In addition, it was considered important
that the methods would cover not only the viewpoint of management but also employees
working in the project. The aim was to provide rich data of the phenomenon. At the same
time the aim was to use as little time as possible of the people participating to the research.
An important intention was to, during the research, check from the empiric whether the
methods needed some revisions (i.e. did the planned research process and methods
correspond enough to the reality matters). Following steps were selected to the research
process:
 initiation (getting started with the research in the company)
 thematic semi-structured interviews;
 documentation by the organizations;
 a web-based survey;
 focus group work;
 analysis and interpretation.
Figure 1. Methods and related outcomes.
The purpose of the Initiation phase was to get started with the research in the company as
smoothly as possible. The second step, thematic semi-structured interviews were used to
provide qualitative data from the personnel interviewed. Next step, documentation by the
organizations would provide mainly qualitative data (it is possible that this phase includes
also quantitative data) that is objective and represents the organizations’ official guidelines.
This phase is expected to either provide different information than the interviews, or to
support findings from the interviews. The third step, a web-based survey, was used to provide
quantitative data for the auditing process. Focus group working was included in the auditing
process to enhance dialog within the organization to be audited as well as between the auditor
and the organization. The last step in the auditing process is Analysis and interpretation. This
phase was decided to include as it would provide an opportunity for a wider viewpoint to the
phenomenon: the results of current auditing could be compared to e.g. earlier results. In the
following, the rationale and realization of each step is explained in more detail.
Initiation
Using an external auditor brings it important to have some kind of initiation phase before
starting the research. Suring this phase a common understanding between the auditor and the
audited party should be gained about what is going to be done and what to expect from the
process. This should include discussion about the purposes and goals for the process: what
outcomes each party may expect to come about and how the outcomes will be documented
and shared. There should also be a common understanding of the exact methods used e.g. the
contents and the structure, what each method is expected to reveal, and how much time will
their utilization require. In addition, the roles and responsibilities of the parties involved
should be made clear, as well as the contact information and frequencies. For example, it is
good to document who has the responsibility to define and provide contact information of the
participants to the following research phases. Also other possibly case-specific roles are to be
discussed and agreed.
Interviews & documents
The main data gathering methods in the research process documented here are the survey and
the focus groups. To support these, interviews and studying certain organizational documents
are conducted beforehand. The objectives of the interviews are the following:



to familiarize the auditor with essential current project communication practices in the
case. Based on this information the auditor can check whether all relevant aspects of
communication system within this specific organization are covered in the survey.
to familiarize the auditor with the current communication follow-up practices and
earlier development actions related to project communication in the organizations.
This information can be used as a reference data of earlier surveys within the
company.
to document background information of the studied projects. This kind of information
is important to documents especially if the data gained during this audit is used as a
benchmarking data.
The first two objectives are supplemented by studying organization specific internal
documentation. The documentation may include such as guides for conducting a project plan,
or earlier survey reports. Organizational documents provide information about the official
communication system within the organization and may reveal e.g. essential communication
processes, the main media used, and utilized data bases.
Survey
Communication audits typically include a survey. To develop the survey for this research
process, the strengths and weaknesses of other similar-like typically used surveys were
analyzed. This analysis was used as a starting point to a survey questionnaire to be
developed. From this analysis it shows that in addition to consider the contents of the survey,
one has to make certain decisions on technical realization of it. At first, the selection of paper
or electronic forms brings further choices to consider: how much do we set limits for the time
and place for the respondents to give their answers. These considerations affect the internal
and external validity of the audit. External validity i.e. the generalizability of the results is
weakened by low response rate. Thus, we may want to make giving responses as easy as
possible by e.g. sending an email with an internet address where the respondent can give
his/her reply. On the other hand, being able to give answers whenever and wherever suitable
to the respondents lessens the auditors control over the process, and possibly lessens the
internal validity (i.e. real existence of the professed causal relationships). For example, how
can we be sure that the responses given are truly given by the person we expected?
Considering these aspects the survey was decided to be conducted using a web-based
questionnaire. Utilizing internet applications enables more flexibility to the audit process: the
respondents may give their answers whenever it is suitable for them. In addition, it lessens
the paper work related to the audit, and provides the data in an electronic and easily handled
form.
A web-based questionnaire requires a technical solution i.e. a platform where the
questionnaire runs. To avoid the development efforts of a technical platform, a web-based
questionnaire provider was chosen (ZEF Solutions Ltd.). There are several advantages for
using the tool. Firstly, the questionnaire was easy to develop due to user-friendly userinterface of the tool provider. This allowed time savings in the audit process as a total. In
addition, the tool was perceived as user-friendly for the respondents, which was important in
order to the response rate to be as high as possible. Also, during the initiation phase the
company representatives emphasized the importance of the ease of the audit process for the
respondents. With the selected tool the respondents were easy to reach (email). Additionally,
the tool provided data in a form that was easy to analyze.
Contents of the communication audit questionnaires differ. In this audit process, the purpose
of the survey is to reveal how satisfied project personnel are with different communication
aspects present in product development. The questionnaire was developed utilizing earlier
research of communication audits, especially CSQ (Downs & Hazen 1977), ICA Audit
Survey (Goldhaber & Krivonos 1977, Goldhaber 2002), and LTT audit questionnaire (Wiio
& Helsila 1974, Wiio 1977). In addition, research done by Müller (2003) and the
Construction Industry Institute (1996) was used. The questionnaire was then modified based
on the information found during the interviews and documents review. In this modification
phase certain questions were added in order to the contents of the questionnaire better cover
the realities of high technology product development projects. The contents of the survey are
presented in Appendix 1.
The purpose of the survey was to reveal how satisfied the personnel are to project
communication and how much support individuals get from their superiors or from the
organization. Thus, the questionnaire covered perceived satisfaction of horizontal (team,
other project members, members of other projects, subcontractors, customer) and vertical
(superior, briefings) communication, and typical communication media in the organization.
In addition, the questionnaire explored perceived satisfaction of communication about roles
and responsibilities, personal feedback, lessons learned and change management. The items
gathered for the questionnaire were divided into eight modules (see Appendix 1).
The draft of the questionnaire was refined based on the discussions and findings from the
interviews. The final questionnaire form included altogether 66 questions. However, because
the case projects had somewhat different communication media in use, the number of
questions for each case organization varied: of the 66 questions 60 concerned case A, 50 case
B, 51 case C, 50 case D, and 52 concerned case E (see details in Appendix 1).
The final questionnaire had three kinds of questions:
 questions with multiple choices the respondent could choose from;
 questions with Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (Metsämuuronen 2001);
 three open-ended questions at the end of the questionnaire.
When answering the multiple choice questions each respondent could only pick up one
option. The VAS questions allowed answers to be given on a continuous scale. VAS
questions have been used especially in measuring the status of health and quality of life (De
Boer et al. 2004). Most of the VAS questions used in the survey had two dimensions:
importance and satisfaction (or importance and frequency). For example, if the question was
about “communication planning”, the respondent would give his/her answer at the same time
to questions “How important is communication planning?”, and “How satisfied are you with
communication planning in your project?” (see Fig. 2). Thus, the respondents gave their
answers to both dimensions at the same time.
Figure 2. An example of a VAS-scaled question with two dimensions.
The extreme positions for the VAS questions were:
 Importance: Very important – Not important;
 Satisfaction: Very satisfied – Not satisfied;
 Frequency: Frequently enough – Not frequently enough.
Focus group
The rationale for the focus groups was to complement the audit by providing qualitative data
about the strengths and weaknesses of the communication within the organization.
Focus group method is a group interview where a group of people are gathered to discuss a
specified topic (Wilkinson, 2004). The essential information is the contents of the discussions
during the working. Thus, focus groups are a way to collect qualitative data. Advantages of
focus groups include that, compared to e.g. individual interviews, focus group method allows
communication concerning the topics (Krueger & Casey, 2000): during a focus group session
the participants can discuss their viewpoints, ideas and perceptions about the theme given.
Focus group method is expected to enrich the understanding of strengths and weaknesses
found based on the survey. Audits are done to check the current situation and to propose
some development actions. Focus groups may point out possible constrains related to planned
development actions originating from organizations realities. Additionally, focus groups
provide a possibility for arguments for and against of the coming changes. This will enhance
building commitment to the new direction of operations.
An important phase in using focus group method is the design of the group composition. Or
the discussion to be fruitful, there should be suitable number people with relevant
background. A survey could well cover large number of people, but for a focus group from 6
to 8 persons is typical (Morgan 1998). In this audit process it was considered important that a
wide understanding of the personnel perceptions was gained. Thus, the focus group
participants would represent different roles from the project: designers and other engineering
personnel, supporting functions (e.g. quality support for the projects), and project
management.
Focus groups should have a predefined agenda including topics or themes to be discussed. In
this case, the agenda of the focus groups were defined to include two main steps:
1. identification of project communication related topics that focus group participants
considered requiring improvement actions the most;
2. generation of ideas on how to develop each topic named in the first part of the focus
group working.
The interest in the working of the focus groups was manifold. From the phase one it would be
interesting to note whether focus group participants would choose the same topics that were
highlighted in the survey results, and if not, why. It is possible that certain weaknesses are
because of practical constrains of the organization, and thus cannot be really sorted of. From
the phase two, new ideas on how to develop project communication would emerge. This
information can be utilized in organizational development projects.
The described process was applied in a research of project communication among five high
technology companies (Väänänen 2010). The process included data collection from five
cases. Thus, a cross-case analysis was conducted and provided for the cases participated as a
benchmarking data.
Analysis and interpretation
In this phase the data collected during the earlier phases was analyzed and compared to each
other. This was found to be important after the data from different phases, to some extent,
pointed to different communication challenges. After the audit process was completed, it was
clear that it was useful to include all these different data gathering methods as they truly
provided more information for the auditor.
In addition, in this phase the data collected could be compared to the results of possible
earlier audits, or, if available, other analyses done within the same industry. This kind of
benchmarking analysis was included into this phase.
CONCLUSIONS
Organizational communication has been an interest for academics and practitioners for
decade. Efficient communication is essential for effective management of any organization. It
is essential to continuously invest in communication development. Communication audits are
means to gain information of the current state of and to enhance organizational
communication.
Earlier literature presents different methods used in communication audits. The selection of
methods may include both quantitative and qualitative methods. An auditor needs to consider
which methods are suitable in each audit process. This paper aims to present a process to be
used in ICT product development projects’ communication audits.
The paper suggests that, in order to gain comprehensive understanding of the current
situation, a communication audit in the studied context should include multiple data gathering
and data analysis methods. Still, the process should require time from the personnel involved
as little as possible.
This paper presents a process used for communication audit in ICT product development
projects to include six phases: initiation (getting started with the research in the company),
thematic semi-structured interviews, documentation by the organizations, a web-based
survey, focus group work, analysis and interpretation.
Data collection methods were divided into four steps. The first one includes thematic semistructured interviews that were used to provide qualitative data from the personnel
interviewed. Next step, documentation by the organizations was included to provide mainly
qualitative data that is objective and represents the organizations’ official guidelines. The
document supported findings from the interviews. The third step, a web-based survey, was
used to provide quantitative data for the auditing process. The fourth step was focus group
working and its purpose was to enhance dialog within the organization to be audited as well
as between the auditor and the organization.
Data analysis was conducted after each data collection step to provide information for the
next data collection step. In addition, after the four data collection steps, an analysis and
interpretation phase was included to compare all data to each other and to provide
comparison to possible earlier audits within in the company or in other companies
(benchmarking analysis).
Communication audits should be conducted regularly. The aim is to provide information on
where possible problems are developing before serious problems arise. If conducted
regularly, communication assessments also provide information on how the organization is
progressing in relation to communication (Downs & Adrian 2004).
The limitation of this paper include that the communication audit process presented in this
paper was applied in five cases in ICT sector companies. Interesting themes for future
research include applying the presented process in different companies operating in ICT or
other industries.
REFERENCES
1. Birk A & Heller G (2007) Challenges for Requirements Engineering and Management in
Software Product Line Development. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 4542: 300-305.
2. Borgatti S P, Everett M G and Freeman L C (2002) UCINET 6 for Windows. Software
for Social Network Analysis. Analytic Technologies, Harvard, Cambridge, MA.
3. Campbell Jr R & Holmes MF (2004) Product Development Processes: Three Vectors of
Improvement. Res Technol Manage 47(4): 47-55.
4. Clampitt P (2000) The questionnaire approach. In Hargie O & Tourish D (eds) The
handbook of communication audits for organizations. London, Routledge: 45-65.
5. Construction Industry Institute (1996) COMPASS: Communications Project Assessment
Tool.
6. De Boer A, Van Lanschot JJB, Stalmeier PFM, Van Sandick JW, Hulscher JBF, de Haes
J & Sprangers MAG (2004) Is a single-item visual analogue scale as valid, reliable and
responsive as multi-item scales in measuring quality of life? Quality of Life Research
13(2): 311-320.
7. Dickson D (2000) The focus group approach. In Hargie O & Tourish D (eds) Handbook
of Communication Audits for Organisations. London, Routledge: 85-103.
8. Dickson D (2009) The focus group approach. Auditing Organizational Communication:
A Handbook of Research, Theory and Practice: 103.
9. Downs CW & Adrian AD (2004) Assessing organizational communication: Strategic
communication audits. New York, The Guilford Press.
10. Downs CW & Hazen MD (1977) A factor analytic study of communication satisfaction.
Journal of Business Communication 14(3): 63.
11. van Echtelt FEA, Wynstra F, van Weele AJ & Duysters G (2008) Managing Supplier
Involvement in New Product Development: A Multiple-Case Study. J Prod Innovation
Manage 25(2): 180-201.
12. Edmondson AC & Nembhard IM (2009) Product development and learning in project
teams: The challenges are the benefits. J Prod Innovation Manage 26(2): 123-138.
13. Goldhaber GM (2002) Communication Audits in the age of the internet. Manage
Commun Q 15(3): 451-457.
14. Goldhaber GM & Krivonos PD (1977) The ICA communication audit: Process, status,
critique. Journal of Business Communication 15(1): 41-64.
15. Hargie O & Dickson D (2007) Are important corporate policies understood by
employees? A tracking study of organizational information flow. Journal of
Communication management, 11, 9-28.
16. Hargie O & Tourish D (2009) Auditing organizational communication. A handbook of
research, theory and practice. New York, Routledge.
17. Harvey MG & Griffith DA (2007) The role of globalization, time acceleration, and virtual
global teams in fostering successful global product launches. J Prod Innovation Manage
24(5): 486-501.
18. Henderson JK (2005) Evaluating public relations effectiveness in a health care setting.
The identification of communication assets and liabilities via a communication audit. J
Health Hum Serv Adm 28(2): 282-322.
19. Killen CP, Hunt RA & Kleinschmidt EJ (2007) Managing the new product development
project portfolio: a review of the literature and empirical evidence. Portland International
Center for Management of Engineering and Technology: 1864-1874.
20. Krueger RA & Casey MA (2000) Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research.
Sage, 219p.
21. Mallick DN & Schroeder RG (2005) An integrated framework for measuring product
development performance in high technology industries. Production and Operations
Management 14(2): 142-158.
22. Millar R & Gallagher M (2000) The interview approach. In Hargie O & Tourish D (eds)
London, Routledge: 66-84.
23. Morgan DL (1998) The focus group guidebook. Sage Publications Inc.
24. Müller R (2003) Communication of information technology: project sponsors and
managers in buyer-seller relationships. London, Universal Publishers.
25. Paasivaara M (2005) Communication Practices in Inter-Organisational Product
Development. Helsinki University of Technology.
26. Vos, M. (2009) Communication quality and added value: a measurement instrument for
municiplities.
27. Väänänen, M. (2010) Communication in high technology product development projects –
Project personnel’s viewpoint for improvement. Doctoral dissertation, University of Oulu,
Oulu. Available from http://herkules.oulu.fi/isbn9789514262951/
28. Wilkinson S (2004) Focus group reseach. Sage Publications Ltd, 177p.
29. Wiio OA (1977) Organizational communication and its development. Helsinki,
Viestintäinstituutti.
30. Wiio O & Helsila M (1974) Auditing communication in organizations: a standard survey,
LTT communication audits. Finnish Journal of Business Economics 4: 305-315.
31. Zwijze-Koning K & de Jong M (2007) Auditing Information Structures in Organizations:
A Review of Data Collection Techniques for Network Analysis. Organizational Research
Methods, 2005, 8, 4, 429-453.
32. Zwijze-Koning K & de Jong M (2007) Evaluating the communication satisfaction
questionnaire as a communication audit tool. Manage Commun Q 20(3): 261-282.
Appendix 1. Survey questionnaire questions.
Module1 Question
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1
1. In which site is your workplace located?
2. Organization you belong to
1. What is your role in this program?
2. What is your role in this project?
3. How well do you know the top five formal objectives of your
program?
4. How well do you know the top five formal objectives of your
project?
5. Success of the program
6. Success of the project
7. Communicating with persons from other programs
8. Communicating with persons from other projects
1. Program communication in general
2. Project communication in general
3. Communication plan: Is there a communication plan in the
project/program?
4. Communication planning
5. Understanding what is expected from you
6. Understanding roles and responsibilities
7. Introduction to communication methods and tools
8. Knowing where or from who to get information you need
9. Access to people with information necessary to you
10. Access to information necessary to you
11. Being kept up-to-date with changes
1. How well do you understand how your project affects other
projects?
2. Communication with other projects
3. How well do you understand how your program affects other
programs?
4. Communication with other programs
5. Project/program customer: How well do you know the
project/program customer?
6. Communication with the project/program customer
7. Communication with external project personnel
8. Communication problems: at what level do you think
communication problems mainly occur?
1. Project follow-up: How important are visual control practices
like schedule at white board?
2. Document management system
3. Program intranet pages
4. Project intranet pages
5. Info email / Project newsletter
6. Project reviews
7. Project meetings
8. Project team meetings
9. Program info sessions
10. Project info sessions
11. Communication by email
12. Communication by phone
13. Primary information source
1. Your experience in project work
2. Communication inside the project team
3. Communication between teams
4. Communication between the team and the project manager
5. Communication between the team and the program manager
6. Team spirit in the team
7. Team building
8. Knowing how the job affects the project success
9. Knowing how the project affects the overall business
10. Open and honest communication
11. Managing with conflicts
12. Considering your reporting to project management
1. Working hours allocated to this project
2. Informal and ad-hoc meetings
3. Training of personal communication skills
4. Receiving feedback on contributions to the project
5. Meeting the project manager
6. Meeting the program manager
7. Communication lessons learned
8. Receiving conflicting instructions
1. Current good practices in project communication?
2. What communication practices should be avoided?
3. How could communication be improved?
4. Your age
2D2
Reference:
Downs &
COMPASS Müller Wiio
Hazen
(2003) (1977,
(1977)
1974)
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Interviews
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Modules: A General questions 1, B General questions 2, C Communication in your program, D Communication with project &
program stakeholders, E Information management, F Leadership 1, G Leadership 2, H Improving communication.
2
2D: the question had two dimensions: satisfaction & importance or satisfaction & frequency.