Content provided in partnership with

Is E-mail a Time Saver?

Journal for Quality and Participation, The, Summer 2005

Do you agree or disagree?

During the recent ASQ World Conference on,, Quality and Improvement, participants in one of the networking sessions discussed "Work-Life Balance: Tilting the Scales More Evenly." One area that generated a great deal of debate was e-mail and whether or not it actually saved or wasted time.

Some of the conference attendees pointed out that the increasing use of e-mail had reduced the number of in-person meetings they had to attend. In some situations, e-mail messages completely eliminated the need for face-to-face discussions. In others, preparatory e-mail messages/exchanges were used to establish agendas, exchange background information, and clarify discussion points, thereby reducing the length of the associated meetings.

Most Popular Articles in Business: Research and Markets : Tesco Plc - SWOT Framework Analysis; Do Us a Flavor - Ben & Jerry's Issues a Call for Euphoric New Flavors; eBay made easy: ready to start an eBay business? These 5 simple steps will ...; Katrina's lawsuit surge: a legal battle to force insurers to pay for flood ...; Wal-Mart's newest distribution center opened last month near the southwest ...; More »

On the other hand, some of the discussion contributors felt that their meeting loads had increased. The ease of sending e-mails to so many people simultaneously seems to result in a larger number of people being notified of issues and decisions. Once initially involved via e-mail, these extra people are expected to stay involved by attending meetings on an ongoing basis.

Broader distribution of information via e-mail may or may not save time. Some people believed that the ability to keep others informed about impending changes reduces confusion, encourages exchange of ideas regarding changes, and builds commitment. By getting affected people involved earlier, the tendency to feel as if'Tm just a mushroom who's kept in the dark" may be reduced greatly. That potentially positive consequence, however, may be offset by the time required to handle more e-mail messages, including analyzing suggestions, incorporating worthwhile input into the change process, and replying to every respondent.

One other question that was debated during the session was, "Do e-mail messages increase or decrease understanding?" Generally, it was agreed that many messages are poorly written; it may take several exchanges before all the "sent to" parties get "on the same page." The lack of nonverbal cues and the inability to paraphrase, summarize, and ask clarifying questions in real time may exacerbate this problem. Conversely, the inherent delays in the process may encourage more thoughtful consideration of each: -' message -as opposed to the natural tendency to feel as if an immediate response is required in interactive conversations. The net effect on time related to these two effects is difficult to quantify.

There was one area, however, in which participants generally agreed. The proliferation of e-mail messages and even the use of related technologies such as online meetings -has not reduced travel.

Maybe it's time for us to get more disciplined in our use of e-mail. For instance, organizations could establish guidelines on who should be included in specific messages based on these factors: "is accountable for and must be involved in decisions related to the change process," "has important perspectives to contribute to the change process/' and "will be affected by the change process."

Similarly, it might be worthwhile to use a "test and perfect" drafting process for e-mails that contain announcements that affect work processes and/or morale, essential information, etc. Few of us would make a presentation to 10 people without professional proofreading or editing, but most of us would send out an e-mail message to that many (or more) associates without even spell-checking it.

Even more important, it seems reasonable to get more methodical about asking the overarching question, "Is e-mail the best way to communicate this message?" Clearly, the answer isn't always, "yes." In fact, participants in the networking session agreed that time would be saved in many cases if one person would walk down the hall and ask the other person a question instead of sending an e-mail message.

Different situations require different communication approaches. Both efficiency-defined as the time required to prepare and distribute the message (the easy measurement) - and effectiveness - the time required to obtain the desired response to the message (the more challenging measurement) - contribute to the total time involved in the communication. Considering both of these parameters in the decisionmaking process should help us make more appropriate choices regarding when and how to use e-mail.

Express Your Opinion

Want to share your reaction? Include the title "Up for Debate -E-mail" with your message.

Want to pose a question for debate? Submit a 200-400 word proposal. Include the title "Up for Debate -Proposal" with your message.

Submit your reaction/proposal to debhopen@nventure.com. Please include your address and daytime telephone number. ASQ reserves the right to edit comments for space and clarity.

Is E-mail a Time Saver?

Journal for Quality and Participation, The, Summer 2005

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Autos

Most Popular Articles in Business

Most Popular Publications in Business