| |
Abstract
The future deliverance of fast, effective organizational
communication for goal achievement also lies in the
organization’s ability to employ nanotechnology. To
understand the integrated patterns of human behavior which
include thought, speech, action and artifacts, with regard
to intercultural and organizational cultural communication
for decision making, depend on the capacity of the objective
usage of smaller, faster, lighter, cleaner, leaner,
user-friendly, cost-effective technology as portals or
channels to convey our messages that correspond to the rise
in the economy which will operate according to its own
rules. This paper’s theoretical perspective suggests the
need for organizations to look at the Return on Investment (ROI)
for businesses, shareholders, stakeholders, and also assess
their Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) before using the
inevitable process of nanotechnology. As businesses are
finding more and more differential segments, micro-markets
and targets for their products because of the rising variety
of life-styles, nanotechnology communication formats become
imperative for easy accessibility to clients and markets.
This article’s discussion of the role of business
communication in the creation, Maintenance, and performance
of business, shows the need and employment of business
communication in the field of knowledge and technology
transfer and diffusion, as well as commercialization in the
diverse communication disciplines including the usage of
nanotechnology communication portal format. As business
communication becomes important for everyone in our
sophisticated communication age, we also observe how
information travels with lightening speed from one part of
the globe to another as a result of technological
developments such as the internet and blogs. This article
thus helps to advocate the use of nanotechnology to help
with strategies for program development to stay a few steps
ahead of their challenges and competition.
Introduction
To help businesses connect the unconnected and unpuzzle the
puzzles of lucid effective communication, organizational
cultures need to explore the use of nanotechnology
communication format through the new media to achieve their
goals (Ratner, et al, 2003). Organizational cultures
which are seen as the artifacts (such as dress), espoused
values, conscious strategies, goals and philosophies,
assumptions and norms, pervade many aspects of our existence
(Schein, 1992). Today, the computer in a digital format, as
a centralized gathering and distribution point has given us
a seductive mix of user friendly and people friendly human
activity with the traditional type of media like text,
sound, pictures, signs, satellites, signals, and motion, to
bring about the new media (Mogul, 2000).
This exponential aspect of the new media has become the
important business attribute to organizational cultures. It
is hoped that through the use of Nanotechnology,
corporate cultures will be able to communicate their visions
and missions better to their workforce. It is also hoped
that this usage of Nanotechnology (Editors Scientific
American, Byron Press, 2003) may further result into a
unique discourse communication process that would reflect
the workforce’s cognition of planning change. In a
private/business communication (May 22, 2006), with Funsho
Ojebuoboh, Ph.D., a metallurgist said, if he were to go back
to school today to do some post-doctorial research work now,
he would definitely engage himself in the area of
nanotechnology.
Ojebuoboh then gave a summary of nanotechnology by
explaining that nontechnology, based on material science, is
10 to power minus 9 (10¯9). The first line of attacking the
usage of this nano-knowledge is to be able to assemble nano-particles
into new shapes and new devices. What this means to the
ordinary person on the street is that, it is believed these
new shapes will make properties to have more strength and
ductility. According to Ojebuoboh (2006), we need these
properties (speculatively) because it is believed that nano-materials
will give plastics, metals and ceramics unusual properties
necessary to build new frontier devices. He (Ojebuoboh)
then summated that Richard Feynman, a physicist, in 1959
gave a speech to fellow scientists, “There’s Plenty of Room
at the Bottom,” where he projected that in the future even
large devices will be assembled by constructing devices by
micro-units referred to as nano-units. Although seemed
far-fetched at that time, Feynman’s idea was taken seriously
by military science researchers, and many in the material
sciences believe that the future is here. It has been a
while since Feynman’s lecture (1959) suggested that in the
future even large devices will be assembled by constructing
devices by micro-units referred to as nano-units. Toffler
(1970) also made reference to machines self-rebuilding
themselves. What is interestingly challenging is how to
communicate and market nanotechnology to consumers at
large. This study sees the need for businesses to employ
some types of their organizational cultures that are seen
able and willing, to be engaged in a rendezvous between
nanotechnology usage and business ventures, to speedup their
achievements of desired goals.
To foster an open communication climate reflective of the
corporate culture – (values, traditions, habits, that give a
company its atmosphere or personality) organizations need to
use nanotechnology to help create smaller, faster, lighter,
cleaner, leaner, user-friendly, cost-effective technology as
portals or channels to convey messages that correspond to
the rise in the economy which will operate according to its
own rules. Communication is effective when people understand
each other to take action, and encourage others to think in
new ways, new technology, and new effective business
practices to achieve organizational goals. To get a fuller
and truer understanding of the elements that make
organizational culture, we need to examine some types of
cultures that organizations have co-opted into their
systems. Researcher Jeffrey Sonnenfeld identified the
following four types of cultures, and describes the
different types of personalities involved in these
cultures (http://www.mapnp.org/library/org_thry/culture/culture.htm.
Some Types of Organizational Cultures
While it is understood that not all types of organizational
cultures would be good fits to use nanotechnology apparati
to help them achieve their desired organizational goals,
this study suggests that specific characteristics of some
types of organizational cultures such as Baseball Team
Culture, Club culture, Academy culture, and Fortress
cultures need to be explored as good fits to employ
nanotechnology or more nanotechnology (if already employing
some nanotechnology) to achieve their organizational goals.
These selected types of organizational cultures have in
common, their workers’ high-tech knowledge; the workers have
skills of becoming aspiring champions who would not quit
until the work is done. They also have creative skills to
introduce the next generation of nanotechnology product
initiatives (lighter, smarter, faster, efficient) to help
some businesses, for example, in the mass communications
industries, to achieve their desired goal orientations.
Baseball Team Culture
This type of organizational culture, not only openly
communicates with employees using expressions such as “1st
base, 2nd & 3rd base, and three
strikes, you’re out…” but also regards its employees who
have highly prized skills as “ free agents” This culture
sees its workers as being in high demand who can easily get
jobs elsewhere. This type of culture exists in the
fast-paced, high-risk organizations such as investment
banking, advertising. This organizational culture provides
an atmosphere that is able and willing to use nanotechnology
innovators (Belcher, Chiang, Hammond, 2006) to help them
achieve some organizational goals faster and cost
effectively.
Club Culture
In this culture, the employees are required to fit into
group, team, and organization. This culture also required
its members/employees to start at the bottom and stay in the
organization. The organization promotes from within and
values its seniority system highly, e.g., the military, some
law firms. The dedication of the workforce in this culture
can be used positively to promote nanotechnology usage with
maximum efficiency.
Academy Culture
For this type of organizational culture, the organization
sees to it that its employees are highly skilled and will
stay in the organization while working their way up the
ranks. The organization provides a stable environment in
which the employees develop and exercise their skills, e.g.,
large corporations, hospitals and universities. In order to
help bring the future to our workforce in the Baseball Team
Culture, Club Culture, and Academy Culture, and also take
them with us to the future, there is an implicit necessity
to have an informed workforce of some of the advantages of
nanotechnology. According to Thomas Imerito (2005),
president of Science Communications in Pittsburgh,
Pennsylvania, more recently, and perhaps less known, United
States Steel Corporation was using nanotechnology to make
tougher steel for oil and gas pipelines as early as the
1950’s by using solid-phase titanium nitride and niobium
carbide nanoparticles in steel to increase fracture
toughness for desert and artic environments long before the
term “nano” came into vogue.
Fortress Culture
This culture exudes the appearance that change is an element
of constancy. These organizations often undergo massive
reorganization. Employees don’t know if and when they will
be laid off or not. There are many opportunities for those
with timely, specialized skills, e.g., large car companies,
savings and loans (http://www.mapnp.org/library/org_thry/culture/culture.htm).
The major concerns in this culture are the shifting of power
away from the rank-and-file employees in the direction of
top management/ownership. Also, this change becomes a shift
in emphasis away from the well being of individuals in the
direction of the pre-eminent organization as a whole. This
change system also shifts workers camaraderie into workers
competitiveness. It also moves away employer-employee
relationship from long-term and stable situation to the
direction of short-term contingency mode (http://www.pamij.com/hickok.htm).
To keep many workers on an even keel with technological
progress and the future, and also take away the grotesque
and brutal emptiness of uncertainty, not only the workforce
in the Fortress Culture, but also in the Baseball Team,
Club, Academy and other divers cultures need to be informed
of the importance of nanotechnology. The influx of
high-level instrumentation into government, corporate, and
university laboratories around the world suggests that a
global race for profits from nanotechnology has begun in
earnest (Imerito, 2005). It is also estimated that the U.S.
National Science Foundation (NSF) predicts nano-commerce
will reach $1 trillion by 2015 (Imerito, 2005).
An innovation or innovative thinking may not be a science
for the sake of science; the advocation of using
nanotechnology devices may have something in it to help
improve people’s lives; it may even stir the imagination and
excite geeks because of its aspired super-high-tech
initiatives. At the moment, we can also conceptualize the
shenanigans we can get with nanotechnology operatives that
will help bring forth lighter, smarter, sophisticated
designs and materials to help businesses and organizations
achieve their desired goals. This may also help us explore
how businesses and high-tech- marketing can work together to
see how nanotechnology would help organizations achieve
their desired goals by setting benchmarks in new designs.
Equally significant is for us to realize that even recently,
MIT scientists, Angela Belcher, Yet-Ming Chiang and Paula
Hammond (Nov. 2006) reached a major nanotech milestone by
re-engineering a virus to create a self-assembling product.
The goal of this type of nanofabrication is to make tiny
machines build themselves using molecules they are able to
grab from their surroundings. These scientists are even
quoted as saying, “It’s easy to dismiss the concept as
science fiction-or hype, until you hear what’s been going on
in the lab of MIT” (“Virtual Manufacturing,” Popular
Mechanics, Nov. 2006, p73).
What we are seeing with regard to organizational culture
today comes from an appreciation or understanding of
increased global competition, changing technologies
impacting the nature of work, and the increasing
availability of a contingent work force (Fierman, 1994).
This rapprochement thus shifts the balance of power among
organizational constituents away from rank-and-file
employees in the direction of shareholders and the chief
executives who serve as their proxy. Understanding
organizational cultures would indeed help corporate
managements pick the appropriate communication method that
would be effective for desired goal achievements. It is
also hoped that this may further result into a unique
discourse communication process reflecting the workforce’s
cognition of planned change. Also, one’s understanding of
organizational culture helps to take away the grotesque and
brutal emptiness, the unimaginable void that can be avoided
before decision-making and strategy implementation. The
exploration of nanotechnology to help some businesses
achieve their desired organizational goals is thus needed as
an important venture.
Managing Diverse Organizational Cultures
Culture is regarded as a human creation. It is thus subject
to change and will bend and grow with that change (Winters,
2002). It is also an acceptable practice to understand that
one’s own culture provides the lens through which one views
the world; it is also the logic by which we order it; the
grammar by which it makes sense to us. For organizations to
manage culture it is necessary for us to also understand the
diverse interplay of both human and corporate cultures. To
use cultural derivatives to help communicate to the
workforce and clients means also our acceptance of the
ultimate purpose of communication, which is to enhance human
relationships and not to replace them. Also, diverse
cultural communication understanding helps to erase some of
the feeling of the “mysterious stranger” amongst
communication and helps easy encoding and decoding of
messages. Understanding the “stranger” means understanding
the individuals or group of people who are not familiar with
the culture they are in. The stranger is the one with
limited knowledge of his or her new environment, and where
the locals have little knowledge of the stranger (Gudykunst
& Yun, 1998). In this case, more understanding of some of
the useful usages of nanotechnology would help us work with
and through nanotechnology and not to regard it as a
“stranger” to help us bring about faster, lighter, leaner
mechanisms needed to achieve desired organizational goals.
A dyadic relationship with nanotechnology would be an
appreciative venture.
Gardenswartz and Rowe (2001), in their research show the
effectiveness of probing feedback techniques and good
listening tools that help organizations communicate with
their workforce. Without enforcing a universal definition
of culture, it would be necessary to skillfully use
nanotechnology communication format as a portal for the
training of the workforce, management and academia to
achieve desired goals. In his JOM journal article
(December, 2005), “Nanaotechnology: Building from the
Bottom and Building the Bottom Line,” Imerito, explained
that for humanity, nanotechnology is laden with immense
expectation and, as with all things new, there would be
lingering uncertainty and contradictory set of attitudes,
including low awareness, positive attitude, anticipation of
benefits, suspicion of industry, and low trust in the
government’s ability to regulate the field. Besides these
observations Imerito still reminds us of the 1959 speech of
Richard Feynman, “There’s Plenty of Room at the Bottom”
(p23).
The workplace also comprises a diverse entity of people from
different cultures, and many organizations have pursued
cross-cultural training programs to elevate their bottom
line (Washington Business Journal, 07/05/2001). Many
organizations are also advising their consultants to learn
“soft skills” (Abe, 2003). Studies on this topic indicate
that one in seven United Kingdom managers and 25% of USA
managers are unsuccessful in international assignments (http://www.communicaid.com/cultural_overview.htm).
The reason for this high rate of failure is the
stereotypical ideas and negative or inaccurate
preconceptions of unfamiliar cultures – professionally and
personally. In Low-Context nations (US, Canada), people are
seen to believe that the verbal content of a message is more
important than the medium; the medium being the setting
through which the message is delivered (Asia, Middle East),
business transactions are ritualized and the styles in which
the rituals are carried out matter more than the words.
Llewellyn (2002) states that it is an absolute necessity for
a manager to know the “real” problem in order to make the
best decision on handling an organization’s problem;
something that is not always done. This research work goes
on to state that knowledge of organizational effectiveness
is always necessary to diagnose and solve problems like:
· Strategic
direction – What the organization is working towards, or the
mission statement.
· Goal
alignment – goals that move organizations toward the
direction of the missing statement.
· Organizational
structure – the organizational chart.
· Rewards
& cultural support systems – Benefits, tangibles and
intangibles that recognize employee performance.
· Infrastructure
– various technologies, communication, and department
location.
We need to realize that no organization is misfit free. The
organizing function of management, of course, is to help
arrange the activities to contribute to the enterprise’s
goals (Dessler, 2003). It is also necessary to examine our
understanding of organizational cultural determinants which
help give people some insights on how to perceive the
effects of organizational cultures in the workplace.
Organizational Cultural Determinants
Buhler (2002) points out that a manager should organize a
culture conducive to innovative thinking; and to embrace
innovation to disrupt the status quo and create new ideas to
commercialize new products and services efficiently to its
new markets. In doing this, cross-functional teams should
be formed, especially in decentralized organizations, to
empower employees to make more decisions, more responsive
actions to external factors affecting their business. These
cross-functional teams will comprise employees from various
departments within the organization, to help bring products
faster to the market, e.g., direct mailers, internet
markets, virtual towns, personal visits, e-mails, phone
calls with fresh material content. The usage of
nanotechnology communication format as a portal by
organizational cultures to achieve some of these goals is
seen as a progressive move to be equated to the “nanoscale
promotion of nucleation and controlled inhibition of crystal
growth as an early form of in-situ self-assembly in the
field of metallurgy, as one of the holy grails of
nanoscience today,” (Imerito, 2005, p 19).
The organizational chart within the structure of its culture
does not show who really wheels power sometimes. The
organizational chart in some instances show the title of
each manager’s position and who is accountable to whom, as
well as who is in charge of what area. In short, it only
shows the chain of command between top to lowest positions
in the chart. This type of communication through the chart
may not give a fuller view of power and the decision making
process.
Organizational culture is the personality of an organization
made up of assumptions, values, norms, and tangible signs
like the artifacts of the organization’s members and their
behavior (McNamara, 1999). There are also visual indicators
of culture which help integrate the subculture and the
leadership’s role and misconceptions of the organization’s
culture (Hagberg and Heifetz, 2000).
The values and ideals set in place are endorsed by the
leadership, management and the CEO, on conscious,
unconscious, tangible, and intangible levels. The
artifacts, e.g., decorations, architecture, clothing,
language, jargons, and the subculture, are also endorsed.
Other cultural determinants include dealing with different
personalities (http://proquest.umi/pqdlink).
With varying personalities, not everyone will be a perfect
fit within a department. We should try to learn how
extroverts can work with introverts (http://weblinks3.epnet.com);
and the strength of relationships and teams in the
organization ride with the waves of change (Zegli, 1998).
Our understanding of some of these cultural determinants may
help us know the scale of nanotechnology to introduce at
different levels of the organizational structure.
The strength and willpower of the organization is also
assessed by the effectiveness of its team members. Good
team players must be hardworking, sincere, motivated,
objective, and have good sense of humor. Members should be
articulate, creative, and have the ability to reflect. A
team is as strong as its weakest link. Everyone’s opinion
is valuable and important. A team is valuable and important
(www.employementstrategies.ca).
Effective organizational cultures take pride in team
training. Team training requires simultaneous immersions of
a human with other humans or simulated, computer controlled
humans in a shared virtual environment.
Another organizational culture determinant is the
effectiveness of the inner workings of team communication to
achieve organizational goals. These organizational cultures
provide cross-functional activities for teams through
communication simulation exercises, through mediated
communications including both the mass media and computer
mediated (new media) communication to achieve a
client-friendly voice. These also help coach managers and
change agents with relevant skills by engaging theories and
energizing business innovations to involve critical thinking
for decisions making. Organizations that prioritize
risk-mapping systems in their modus operandi also
minimize the risk of disaster (Clifton, 2002). These
organizations have an action plan, a road map, a business
continuity plan in place. What makes an effective
organizational culture is also the effective preponderance
of its diffusion of innovations to its workforce, the public
and prospective clients. Another important element that
would help the exploration or implementation of
nanotechnology devices to achieve desired organizational
goals is our usage understanding of the communications
diffusion process of innovations.
Corporate Diffusion of the Innovation Process
Market-service information diffusion has been a standard
procedure for business organizations. As corporations look
at computers as a central data gathering and distribution
point for easier, lighter, faster, and cleaner means, they
may also look at nanotechnology to help facilitate the
exponential aspect of this new media. It is also necessary
for administrators of projects to weigh their knowledge of
the communication diffusion process, vis-à-vis new
technologies. Despite the important effects of perceptual
normative influences, for communication diffusion programs
to succeed, they will require the participative involvement
of change agents. Change Agents are people who take action
to change the opinion, attitude, and behavior of people and
social systems. In this case, we would like the change
agents who have been trained in the skillful usage of
nanotechnology as a communication format portal to be
involved in changing the opinions and attitudes of our
workers and clients toward the direction of investment and
usage of nanotechnology. It may be appropriate to focus on
three phases of the change process: unfreezing, changing,
and refreezing of their opinions, attitudes, and behaviors.
Unfreezing
Unfreezing involves disconfirming
existing attitudes and behaviors to create a felt need for
something new – the new project. This is the awareness
stage, a preamble for change. The people we want to change
will be exposed to information on how things are at the
present, the alternatives, both pros and cons of the
situation, and what we are looking at in the future.
Changing
This stage involves the taking of action to modify the
present situation by changing things, people, tasks,
structures, instruments, organizations, etc. Changing is
the stage in which specific actions are taken to create and
incur change. This is the stage also where program
administrators should avoid the “activity trap” as there is
a tendency to bypass the unfreezing stage, and start
changing things prematurely.
Refreezing
Refreezing is the final stage of
the planned change process where changes are reinforced and
stabilized. This stage seals the deal as events are
satisfactorily evaluated against the goals to which the
project committed itself.
To help us turn ordinary situations into extraordinary
events, it may be necessary to combine all our knowledge and
concepts of diffusion of innovation of the First Wave media
– face-to-face exhortation by some to the faithful. We
would also use the centralized Second Wave technology –
audiotapes, the Internet through futuristic technologies. A
word of caution here would be for us to listen to the
observations of Alvin Toffler’s “Power Shift” that
the more automated and extra-intelligent our networks
become, the more human decision—making is hidden from view,
and the more dependant we all become on preprogrammed events
based on concepts and assumptions that few understand and
that are sometimes not even willingly disclosed. (Toffler,
1990, p.129) As stated by Reed (2002) at a seminar held by
a multicultural group of managers, when the question was
posed, “What is a contract?” an American manager stated,
“It’s my bible. I take it everywhere I go.” An Italian
manager quickly stepped in and expressed in horror, “For me,
a contact is a prison!” A Dutch manager followed by saying,
“It’s an insurance policy. I hope I don’t need it, but it’s
there in case things go wrong.” We can see that the common
assumption among these managers about the nature of the
meaning of a contract is that it regulates and defines the
outer limits of the relationship.
As purveyors and disseminators of technically oriented
communications, rather than homogenizing our vision to a
global village as the old Second Wave media did, we would
diversify with a multiplicity of different villages all
wired into the new media system, all working to retain and
enhance their cultural, ethnic, national, and regional
individualities (Toffler, 1990). Communicating technically
saturated information even through present day fiber optics
Level Three technology to different societies across
cultures has its own necessary risk taking. On top of our
present day initiatives, we would also prepare ourselves to
the understanding and dissemination of culturally diverse
information of nanotechnology as an expected future
manufacturing technology that will help make most products
lighter, stronger, cleaner, less expensive, and more precise
(http://www.zyvex.com/nano).
Another issue to examine would be for us to conceptualize
how to employ better, faster, leaner nanotechnology portals
for information distribution.
Nanotechnology portals for Information Distribution
Research scientists and the purveyors of technical
information need to collaborate to look at the usage of
nanotechnology as portals of the new future media systems
distribution of information. As far back as the fifties
(1959 to be precise) physicist and Nobel Laureate, Richard
Feynman, described a vision of using machines to construct
smaller machines, and so on down to the molecular level (Drexler,
Chris Peterson with Gayle Pergamit, 1991). Nanotechnology
is a term introduced in 1974 to describe ultra fine
machining of matter through nanomeasurement and
nanomanipulation in the developments of biotechnology,
chemistry, physics, computational tool building, and
electrical engineering, on a nanoscale (http://www.rang.org/publications/MR/MR615).
As we advocate the resurgence of a New Media, New
Communication, New Business: The call for the use of
animations, holograms, and simulations for training (Fiofori
and Lewis, 2003), we would also look at cheaper, smaller,
cleaner, and faster means of transmitting and translating
this information where the characteristic dimensions are
less than about 1,000 nanometers (http://www.zyvex.com/nano).
The units of nanotechnology are 1 millimeter : 1/1000th
of a millimeter; 1 nanometer – 1/1000th of a
micron. Drexler, Peterson and Pergamit (1991) in their
work, “Unbounding the Future,” provide a non-technical
discussion of what nanotechnology lets us do, by using
technically feasible scenarios to clearly illustrate the
possibilities.
The juxtaposition of science fiction and reality, and the
unbiquitesness of communication through the seeming usage of
nanotechnology have been examined by K. Eric Drexler (1992)
in both “Nanosystems: Molecular Machinery, Manufacturing
for Space Systems,” to show what science discovers what is,
while engineering creates what has never been, an insight
provided by Charles P. Poole (2003). As communication
purveyors, it has become necessary for us to look at how to
fuse the past, present, and the future to help connect the
unconnected people and businesses. It is hoped indeed that
“the advanced economies may soon be able to create whole
arrays of new customized materials such as nanocomposites
virtually from scratch”. (Toffler, 1990, p. 405).
It is one thing to see the eminent inescapable dimensions of
nanotechnology in the diffusion of innovations, but it is
another to be able to look at the projected cost to show
business investors the return on their investment (ROI) (Fiofori
& Lewis, 2003). Alvin Toffler’s Future Shock (1970) argued
that the acceleration of change would transform society, and
would be compounded by the powerful law of economics (time
is money). When the pace of economic activity speeds up,
each unit of time becomes worth more money. This
thought-provoking implication is not just profound for
individual businesses, but also applies to whole economies
and global relations among economies. It is necessary also
to calculate the application of the Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA)
of the new technology.
Before setting the tools for the planning and introduction
of cost benefit analysis, let us take a step and go through
the seams of nanotechnology and use holograms (http://www.holophile.com/history.htm)
as tools to communicate high-tech information across
cultures. All in all, our idea should not be seen by our
receivers of our message as too complicated, but would be
seen as an introduction of the seeming technically
complicated information in a form of entertainment through
the use of holograms.
Holograms and Nanotechnology
The method of photography in which the wave field of light
is scattered by an object and is recorded as an interference
pattern, is called holography. When the photographic
record, called a hologram, is placed in a light beam, the
original wave pattern is regenerated and the observer sees a
3-dimensional image that is a perfect likeness of the
original subject (Business Communications Company Staff,
1986). For business marketing and for a promotional
commercial use conceived as nanotechnology communication,
the Ford Thunderbird, in the Fall 2001, used a
computer-generated hologram “prototype” in 3D different
views of the Thunderbird (T-Bird). These lifelike
projections in technology reminds us of the days of R2D2
calling out for “Help me, Obi-wan” hologram of Princess Leia
in the original Star Wars (Freedman, 2002).
Holography actually dates from 1947, when British/Hungarian
scientist Dennis Gabor, developed the theory of holography
while working to improve the resolution of the electron
microscope, an experiment in serendipity which coined the
term hologram from the Greek word holos meaning
“whole” and gramma, meaning “message” (http://www.holophile.com/history.htm).
By the late 1960s, holography was still largely confined to
the laboratory, although the 1967 World Book Encyclopedia
Science yearbook contained the first mass distributed
hologram, a 4” x 3” transmission view of a chess pieces on a
board accompanied by basic information on the history of
holography. It was not until 1976 when Victor Komar and his
colleagues at the All-Union Cinema and Photographic Research
Institute (NFKI), USSR, developed a prototype for a
projected holographic movie (http://www.holophile.com/history.htm).
In the March 1984 issue of National Geographic Magazine, the
first major publication to put a hologram on its cover,
carried nearly 11 million holograms throughout the world.
Today, applications of holography include supermarket
scanners that read the bar codes on merchandise for the
stores’ computer by using a holographic lens system to
direct laser light onto the product label during checkout.
Nanotechnology is also used for homeland security (Ratner,
2003). In Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA, Michael Garman
uses holograms to install Magic Town, a 1/6 scale
miniaturized city neighborhood, complete with 18 different
buildings to capture everyday neighborhoods and city scenes
of past years (http://www.michaelgarman.com/magictown).
These holograms depict local residents and their tales of
life in the city in the format of a miniature sculptural
theatre, a theatre with magic changing scenes. This type of
theatrical display format by developing and by using
holographic entertainment satires, programmed information
through seeming virtual reality and widespread usage of
nanotechnology may also help achieve organizational goals.
We can here even envision interactive entertainment
activities by viewers and receivers of this information
diffusion having fun with such holographic setups, as these
spectators hopelessly try to grab at dust-like images and to
find out that they were just trying to grab at shadows and
air filaments. The reader may ask, “how much would these
types of devices/applications cost a business or an
organization?” The answer to this question can be achieved
if organizations to first initiate Cost Benefit Analysis,
Needs Assessment, Cost Analysis, Payback, Evaluation
Research, The Need for Action, before venturing into fiscal
involvements.
Cost Benefit Analysis Overview
The calculation of Cost Benefit Analysis (CBA) as we search
the feasibility of nanotechnology as portals, especially the
usage of holograms as information distribution devices may
not necessarily be a one-two punch system as charming and
fascinating as it looks. It may require businesses,
organizations and foundations to look at needs assessment,
cost analysis and evaluation research activities as
necessary preambles.
Needs Assessment
Organizations and businesses need to look at in jobs, tasks
and finances, by first looking at the results that are not
occurring, and the factors contributing to that condition.
Rothwell and Sredl (1992) described needs assessments as
designs to identify and address existing deficiencies or
gaps in performance. But if today’s organizations are to
handle fast-changing business environments, then needs
assessments must be more focused on the future.
Organizations facing fundamental rapid changes in technology
and human resources require the anticipation of unknown
problems or deficiencies that are likely to occur in the
future. It is thus necessary to have future trends,
methodologies, and organizational-level analyses (Swanson,
1994). Through needs assessment designs and development and
implementation efforts, performance engineers are able to
pinpoint stakeholders, clients and luminaries, who can be
engaged in meaningful tasks (Gilmore, Campbell, & Becker,
1989). In the general area of Business / Information
Sciences, needs assessment is viewed as the planning phase
of looking at the organization, the task, and the workforce
and clients (Erffmeter, Rush, & Hair, 1991). In an
innovative approach, the Delphi technique, traditionally
used to forecast is also used as a needs assessment
tool (Olshefski & Joseph, 1991).
Cost Analysis
To help us look at the cost analysis of nanotechnology and
holographic usage for information dissemination, we may use
two approaches: cost-benefit analysis, to help us evaluate
benefits; and cost-effectiveness analysis to help us
evaluate results. We will identify the cost components of
each issue alternative, the ingredients needed to plan,
design, develop, implement, and maintain the program,
course, or solution, e.g., personnel, course materials,
supplies, equipment, facilities, services, and travel. The
cost-benefit analysis will then identify the benefits.
Payback
Although the payback method of cost-benefit analysis is
regarded as the least appropriate method of information
system alternatives, because information systems can take
years to develop, depending on project size, user and
developer proficiencies, resources availability, and
stability of the development technology, payback is the most
commonly used method of comparing the costs and benefits of
systems because it is easily performed and understood (Erekson,
Shaha & Swenson, 1999). The payback method of cost-benefit
comparison involves obtaining the system’s net annual
tangible benefits by subtracting the expected annual
operating costs from the expected annual tangible benefits;
and then by dividing the total systems development costs by
the average net tangible benefit. The result will be the
number of years the organization can expect to wait before
it recovers the amount of money spent in the development of
the system (Anthony and Welsch, 1977).
Evaluation Research
While our needs assessment search may result in some type of
action, we also would like to find out whether the
intervention, the method used, achieved the desired results,
e.g., was the message understood? Was communication
improved? Did the purchase meet Return on Investment (ROI)
expectations? Is the process under control or at the
benchmark? Has the impact on profitability been positive?
Should the program be continued? (Coffman, 1980). This type
of evaluation research also uses the traditional functions
of management: planning, organizing, staffing, leading and
controlling, to discover whether the intervention met the
need (Bell, J.D. and D.L. Kerr, 1987).
The Need for Action
After cross-checking the organization’s needs with the
cost-benefit analysis, it may very well indicate that
nanotechnology usage for information diffusion may not be
for every corporation; if that is the case, we would try to
consider the alternative. Fast-expanding scientific
knowledge has increased the ability to create substitutes
for material resources with customized materials like
nanocomposites (Toffler, 1992) virtually from scratch, also
creating the knowledge necessary to create new resources,
de novo. Corporations thus cannot afford to create a
killing field for doing nothing.
We are now passing the stage of using computers to build
computers, and also computer assisted software engineering.
We are at best comfortable with “meta-software” – software
designed to produce software, and we see this stage in a
kind of infinite regress as the process moves to higher and
higher levels of abstraction. As soon as we establish whose
interest is served, cuibono, it will not be a matter
of delicate and perplexing matter to be discussed, it should
be action oriented. The best of times and the worst of
times sometimes happen in a short span of time. As market
researchers in businesses are finding more and more
differentiated segments and micro-markets and targets for
products, so also are we exposed to the rising variety of
lifestyle with more and more diverse demands of information
technology (IT) usage.
What is emerging is no longer the quest for mass
communication but a highly charged, fast-moving quest for
lighter, cleaner, smaller, faster operations that correspond
to the rise in the economy which will operate according to
its own rules. As indicated by Toffler (1990), we can
measure progress in terms of computer/machine processes,
business transactions, communication flows, the speed with
which our laboratory knowledge has translated meaning to
us. We can still make decisions based on this knowledge.
We do not regard any existing market share as safe today,
and no product life indefinite, unless marketers can create
an endless stream of new products. At best, what is
expected is to have our workforce on an even keel with the
progress of technology.
Using nanotechnology (Drexler [nd], Engines of Creation),
with end products regarded as lighter, smaller, cleaner,
and faster in conjunction with holograms may help diffusion
of information and train educators. These holographic
presentations help provide breathing moments for tireless
raconteurs to give the audience visual rest stops for
introspective reflections. Holograms also provide
entertainment communication exchanges and feedbacks. These
are communication connectors that act as conversational
pieces between change agents and clients, educators and
students, or the holographic artifact and the audience.
From the privileged surroundings and makers of satirical
holographic presentations, especially a fine malicious wit
even sometimes emerges to take communication at office and
business meetings out of the sea of dullness. This
holographic portal thus acts as the pans and palms of
educational entertainment communication. While this device
may not be applicable or adaptable to all change projected
ventures, it will be sufficient for many business ventures
as cost effective and cost efficient. The usage of cost
benefit analysis may unfold a credible process to help with
decision-making. As decision makers dealing with futuristic
operations, we have to also understand the fiduciary
considerations and concerns of business owners,
shareholders, and stakeholders.
It is often said that fear is the primary idea-assassin; it
may perhaps be necessary for an organization to create a
“champion” (McCall, Jr. & Kaplan, 1990); someone who is
committed to getting the problem solved and stays with it
throughout the extended, winding, and often tortuous road to
resolution. The tenacity and almost fanaticism of this type
of a manager sometimes helps push through convoluted
decisions. Organizational cultures need to consistently
reinforce standards in communication mediums to make sure
that values are reviewed periodically to maintain relevance
as a management model to walk-the-talk. If we find
activities in some workplace to be a minefield of randomness
we should be able to anticipate and build a robust system of
defense field to work with randomness.
Conclusion
This study pleads that businesses and organizations be
involved in taking a keen look at nanotechnology (faster,
leaner, lighter, cost-effective) communication devices to
help promote their strengths and visions of desired goal
achievements. Its central theme helps to motivate
businesses to actively team up with material scientists to
employ nanotechnology devices to achieve desired goals.
Value laden pleas of the study add some useful perspectives,
and provide some literature reviews including material
scientists’ definitions of nanotechnology and some usage
applications. The study also shows how some types of
organizational cultures (without excluding other
organizational cultures) may use their traits to quickly
embrace nanotechnology and the communication diffusion
process to achieve desired organizational training goals.
Exemplary usages such as holograms are shown as devices of
nanotechnology that have been used in commercial advertising
by Thunderbird, Star Wars, (Freedman, 2002), Margic Town (http://www.michaelgarman.com/magictown),
and for homeland security (Ratner, 2003).
Thematic information of the study also explains how Cost
Benefit Analysis (CBA) and Return on Investments (ROI) need
to be used to help organizations decide whether to use or
not to use nanotechnology devices to help achieve desired
organizational goals. It points out also how businesses are
finding more and more differential segments, micro-markets
and targets for their products because of the rising variety
of life-styles of people, and how nanotechnology devices
become necessary for easy accessibility to clients and
markets. The work thus observes that if material science
researchers and futuristic thinking business innovators are
able to change people’s mind-set about what nanotechnology
can do and for businesses to invest in it, there are going
to be markets for such devices to help open opportunities
for action business activities.
References
Abe, M. Nami (May 19, 2003) “Cross Cultural Consultant
Advises Learning Sift Skills” Japan: The Nikkei Weekly.
Anthony, R.N. and G.A. Welsch (1997). Fundamentals of
Management Accounting. Homewood, IL: Richard D. Irwin.
Belcher, A, Chiang, Y. and Hammond, P. (Nov. 2006, p73),
“Virtual Manufacturing,” Popular Mechanics.
Bell, J.D., and D.L. Kerr (1987), “Measuring Training
Results: Key to Management Commitment.” Training and
Development Journal, 41 (January 1987), pp. 70-73.
Buhler, P.M. (2002), “The Manager’s role in building an
innovative organization.” SuperVision. 63(8), 20-22.
Business Communications Company Staff, (1986), Holography:
New Commercial Opportunities.
Clifton, W. (Fall, 2002). “Business continuity planning,”
Occupational Health & Safety, Waco; 69(10), 178-182.
Coffman, L. (1980), “Successful Training Program
Evaluation,” Training and Development Journal, 34
(October) pp 84-87.
Dessler, G. (2003), Management: Theory, Practice, and
Application, NJ: Upper Saddle River, Pearson Custom
Publishing.
Drexler, K. Eric (1992), Molecular Manufacturing for Space
Systems: An Overview, Journal of the British
Interplanetary Society, vol. 45, pp. 401-405.
Drexler, K. Eric, and Chris Peterson, with Gayle Pergamit
(1991), Unbounding the Future: The Nanotechnology
Revolution, New York, Quill Books.
Drexler, Eric [ND]. Engines of Creation: The Coming Era
of Nanotechnology. Anchor Press.
Editors Scientific American (2002). Understanding
Nanotechnology. Byron Press Visual Publications.
Erffmeyer, R.C., Russ. R., & Hair, J.F. (1991), Needs
assessment and evaluation in sales-training programs.
Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 11(1),
17-30.
Fierman, J. (January 24, 1994). “The contingency workforce,”
Fortune, pp. 30-36.
Fiofori, F., and Jeff Lewis, (2003), “New Media, New
Communication, New Business: The call for the use of
animations, holograms, and simulations for training,”
presented at the 33rd annual meeting of the
Western Decision Sciences Institute, Wyndham Grand Bay
Island Navidad Resort, Manzanillo Mexico, April 13-17, 2004.
Freedman, David H., July 2002 Issue, Business 2.0.
Gardenschwartz, Lee & Anita Rew (March 2001).
Cross-Cultural Awareness. Society for Human Resource
Management, Gale Group.
http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0m3495/3_4/71969398,pi/articlex.jhtm?term=cross-culturalcommunication.
Retrieved September 2, 2003.
Gilmore, G.D., Campbell, M.D. & Becker, B.L. (1989), Needs
assessment strategies for health education and health
promotion. Dubuque, IA: Brown and Benchmark.
Gudykunst, William, and Kim, Young Yun (1998).
Communicating with Strangers: An Approach to Intercultural
Communication. (6th ed.) New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill. Also found at
www.colorado edu/conflict/peace/example/gudy6816.htm.
Hagberg, R. and Heifetz, J. (2000), Corporate
Culture/Organizational Culture. Understanding Assessment:
Telling the CEO his/her baby is ugly. HCG.
http://proquest.umi/pqdlink; Dealing with Different
Personalities. Retrieved June 2, 2003.
http://weblinks3.epnet.com; EBSCO host, Cross-cultural
Awareness. Retrieved June 2, 2003.
http://www.holophile.com/history.htm, retrieved July 15,
2003.
http://www.mapnp.org/library/org_thry/culture/culture.htm,
retrieved November 11, 2003.
http://www.michaelgarman.com/magictown, retrieved
September 2003.
http://www.pamj.com/hickok.htm, retrieved November 11,
2003.
http://www.rand.org/publications/mr/nr615, retrieved
Dec. 29, 2003.
http://www.zyvex.com/nano, retrieved Dev. 29, 2003.
Llewellyn, R.N. (2002). “When to call the organization
doctor,” HR Magazine, 47(3), 79-83. Retrieved May 4,
2003 from
http://proquest.umi.com.
McCall, Morgan W. Jr. & Robert E. Kaplan, (1990).
Whatever It Takes: The Realities of Managerial Decision
Making. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River.
McNamara, C. (1999). Nuts-and-Bolts Guide to Leadership
and Supervision: Organizational Culture. Minneapolis,
MN: Authenticity Consulting, LLC.
Mogel, L. (2000). Careers in Communications and
Entertainment. New York: Kaplan Books, Simon & Schuster.
Olshfksi, D.A., Steven, H. Shaha & Craig D. Swenson (1999),
Business Research Realities, Simon & Schuster Custom
Publishing.
Poole,
Charles P. (2003). Introduction to Nanotechnology.
Wiley-Interscience.
Ratner, Mark A., et al, (2003). A gentle introduction to
the Next Big Idea. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Professional
Technical Reference.
Ratner, Daniel (2003). Nanotechnology and Homeland
Security: New Weapons for New Wars. New Jersey:
Prentice Hall.
Reed, Bill (2002). What is a Contract? East Asia
Business.
Rothwell, W.J. and Sredl, H.H. (1992). The ASTD Reference
Guide to Professional Human Resource Development Rules and
Competencies (2nd ed.) HRD Press, Amherst, MA.
Schein, E. (1992). Organizational culture and leadership.
San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.
Swanson, R.A. (1994), Analysis for improving performance:
Tool for diagnosing organizations and documenting workplace
expertise. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler.
Toffler, A. (1970), Future Shock, Bantam Books, New York.
Toffler, A. (1990), Power Shift, Knowledge, Wealth and
Violence at the Edge of the 21st Century, Bantam
Books, New York.
Washington Business Journal, 07/05/ 2001…07092003.
www.bizjournal.com/washington/stories/2001/05/07/smallb2.html?
Winters, E. (November 2002) Indus. Weaving in the
Cultural Context, 1-4. Retrieved September 2, 2003, from
www.stc_india.org/indius/112002/index.htm.
www.employmentstrategies.ca.
Zogli, S.W. (Feb. 1998). Teams Ride with the Waves of
Change. Quality Digest. Retrieved June 15, 2003,
from the University of Wisconsin School of Business
database,
http://instruction.bus.wisc.edu/obweb/readings/zoglio/htm.
|
|
|
