Efficient collaboration requires context which email does not provide. As noted by Simon Slade, CEO of Affilorama, SaleHoo and Doubledot Media: “Emails arrive chronologically, an inefficient and ineffective organization method. Project management systems allow updates to be made in an organized manner, by project, and employees can review recent posts when they’re ready to work on that project, rather than when their inbox dings, interrupting other work.”
The above observation begins to address the need for context, but it misses some other relevant points. A more complete context would include more information than just the project name. Due date would obviously be important, but additional contextual cues would include: who is responsible for the next task, who should the task be delivered to, where are we in the process of completing the task (i.e. are we in agreement about what the task entails, is the work in progress, has the task been delivered, has the task been accepted as complete), and who’s got the ball for the next action (i.e., am I getting back to someone else next, or am I waiting for someone else)? Most project management systems do not include all these contextual parameters.
William Pearce, Co-founder of InboxVudu observes: “Email sucks because it’s too easy to miss them, and too difficult to remember to follow up if you don’t get a reply. During the working day, most business communication is best done over the phone, via team collaboration tools (which include instant messaging) or in person, and email makes it too easy to hide from these channels.”
The above statement recognizes several shortcomings of email as a collaboration tool. Emails arrive haphazardly making them easy to miss. Remembering to follow up is difficult. Emails do not provide any structure to the work conversations. Direct (i.e. immediate) communication via phone or instant messaging attempts to resolve issues with no hiding. This instantaneous resolution of issues is obviously desirable, but rarely happens in practice as messages cannot always be responded to immediately.
So, combining the above observations about the need for context and structure, the ideal project management tool would have the following features:
— Incoming updates would be structured, and they would provide context showing task, due date, where do we stand, and who’s got the ball.
— Follow up would be immediately obvious in terms of who has responded and when, and who’s got the ball for the next action.
— Asynchronous inputs could be captured in addition to direct (i.e. immediate) communication.
— The entire task-related conversation would be captured in a thread tied to the task, not the person.
— An archive of complete task-based conversations would be available for reference and review.
— The system would be as quick and easy to use as email (i.e. no need for everyone on the team to learn a complex project management system).
If you would be interested in a project management solution that really supports full context and structured communication, check out CommitKeeper.